changing FUNKNET topics

[Guy Deutscher]

At 15:29 06/02/2002 +0100, Dirk Geeraerts wrote:
>Is Martin's question one that can be answered empirically, i.e. what would
>we need to answer it on the basis of empirical evidence?

Maybe Martin's question could be reformulated in a simpler way, or at least
a way which will make it easier to decide whether or not it can be answered
empirically. Isn't the real question this: are there any non-functional
innovations? If all innovations are functionally driven, then the question
about the role of propagation becomes a non-question, or at least one that
cannot be answered empirically. If innovations are already selected for
being functional, there will be no obvious way of deciding whether
propagation adds further functional selection, given our famous
'conflicting motivations'. But if innovations can be non-functional, then
the question of whether propagation exercises functional selection becomes
meaningful and perhaps even empirically testable.

When asked about the causes of innovations, the standard motives we usually
invoke can all be seen as functional: economy/ease of production,
simplification/ease of processing, need to extend expressive range, and so
on. (Perhaps the only exception is borrowing?) In any case, if anyone can
come up with an innovation which is clearly non-functional, that is, which
has no functional motivation whatsoever, then the discussion could become
more meaningful. (Of course, a 'non-functional innovation' is not the same
as an innovation that introduces dysfunctionality into the language - we
all know there are plenty of innovations that simplify one thing but make
something else more complex. 'Non-functional innovations' are those that
don't have any functional motivation in the first place.)

Guy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr Guy Deutscher
St John's College
Cambridge CB2 1TP
England

E-mail:  gd116 at cam.ac.uk
Tel:  01223 - 338741
Fax: 01223 - 740540