<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<p>I think maybe something can be said about the relation between adaptively-motivated
syntax and <b>diachronic change</b>. Adaptive (functional, communicative)
motivation is not simple; it most often involves multiple factors and <b>competing
motivations</b>. The well-known <b>grammaticalization cycle</b> is just
one general case in point: The later stages of 'de-grammaticalization'
(see several articles in A. Giacalone-Ramat and P. Hopper, eds, TSL #37,
1998) reveal the intervention of phonological erosion which creates irregular,
hard-to-learn ('counter-iconic') grammatical constructions (and morphologies).
But there are a gadzillion more-specific instances in the life cycle of
individual syntactic constructions. During the early phase of functional-extension
via functional similarity and thus 'dual use' (say, re-interpreting the
purely stative adjectival construction "The window was broken" as a result-of-action/event,
"The window has been broken (by someone)"), a structure long adapted for
one function is now used to code another, for which it is much less well-adapted
(indeed, communicatively msleading; in this case signalling 'state' but
coding 'event-with-de-topicalized-agent'). Only after some subsequent structural
changes do the two functions differentiate structurally ("The window was
broken (by someone)". But other functional innovations (in addition
to phonological erosion) may intervene, with their own unimpeachable--but
different & often conflicting--adaptive motivation. Thus, for example,
the later rise of the GET-passive in English yielded a structure that came
from a totally different diachronic source (reflexive-of-causative) and
initial functional motivation, but eventually became both functionally
and structurally rather similar to the BE-passive, resulting in considerable
usage variation & confusion.
<p>In all this, diachronic change is very much like biological evolution.
In both, the intial impetus for changes is adaptive but profoundly <b>local.</b>
In both, multiple local factors often conflict (the left hand seldom tells
the right what it is up to). This gives both evolution & diachrony
the unmistakable "tinkered" (as opposed to "engineered") flavor. And the
resulting synchronic sytructures in both reveal, paradoxical, many counted-adaptive
features (a la Rube Goldberg...). But still, the <b>processes</b> that
leads to the rise of such 'counter-iconic' end products--decrepit conjugation,
insane declentions, wild portmanteaux, decptive morphophonemics, dead relics
that retain clear structural presence (the appendix)--were nevertheless
adaptively motivated.
<p>The upshot of all this is that an adaptive approach to language (or
biology) cannot be practiced as a simplistic creed with the mantra "At
all time all synchronic structures must be, transparently, 100% motivated--or
else functionalism is falsified". Rather, it is a long-term and oft-frustrating
research program that strives to understand the incredible complexity of
the <b>process</b> that gives rise to <b>both</b> iconic and counter-iconic
features of the communicative code. This may be fiendishly difficult, but
in attempting to cope with our predicament, we are traveling in excellent
company. Cheers, TG
<p>===========================
<p>Daniel Everett wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Joan,
<p>Point well-taken. I was not endorsing Michel's article per se and if
it
<br>seemed that I was, that was a mistake on my part. Of course, I need
to
<br>read it before I endorse it. I was saying that in comparing his
<br>description of it in his letter with Parkvall's comments on it.
<p>My main point is that we should be careful of saying what is in the
<br>grammar for communicative power and what is merely syntax, e.g. gender,
<br>perfect tense, etc. because there is a lot of work to do to tell these
<br>two conceptually distinct issues apart in practice.
<p>Dan
<p>On Sunday, December 8, 2002, at 11:02 PM, Joan Bresnan wrote:
<p>>> Though I haven't yet read DeGraff's contribution, it sounds more
<br>>> plausible
<br>>> on the surface of things than Parkvall's remarks, though, because
it
<br>>> seems to take syntax more seriously than what I could gather from
<br>>> Parkvall's quote.
<br>>>
<br>>
<br>> Dan, you really ought to read the references before you comment on
<br>> them. I don't wish to make personal remarks about others on
this
<br>> list, but a neutral observer might find DeGraff's Linguistic Typology
<br>> commentary to be an intemperate rant that crosses the boundaries
of
<br>> academic civility. "Trying hard to miss the point"--paraphrasing
<br>> Parkvall--is a very kind way to describe it.
<br>>
<br>> Joan
<br>>
<br>>
<p>------------------------------------------
<p>Daniel L. Everett
<br>Chair of Phonetics and Phonology
<br>Department of Linguistics
<br>The University of Manchester
<br>Oxford Road
<br>Manchester, UK M13 9PL
<br><a href="http://lings.ln.man.ac.uk/">http://lings.ln.man.ac.uk/</a>
<br>FAX & Department phone: 44-161-275-3187
<br>Office: 44-161-275-3158</blockquote>
</html>