21.3577, Calls: Historical Ling/Japan

[linguist at LINGUISTLIST.ORG]

LINGUIST List: Vol-21-3577. Thu Sep 09 2010. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.

Subject: 21.3577, Calls: Historical Ling/Japan

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Eastern Michigan U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>
 
Reviews: Monica Macaulay, U of Wisconsin-Madison  
Eric Raimy, U of Wisconsin-Madison  
Joseph Salmons, U of Wisconsin-Madison  
Anja Wanner, U of Wisconsin-Madison  
       <reviews at linguistlist.org> 

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, 
and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Di Wdzenczny <di at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

LINGUIST is pleased to announce the launch of an exciting new feature:  
Easy Abstracts! Easy Abs is a free abstract submission and review facility 
designed to help conference organizers and reviewers accept and process 
abstracts online.  Just go to: http://www.linguistlist.org/confcustom, 
and begin your conference customization process today! With Easy Abstracts, 
submission and review will be as easy as 1-2-3!

===========================Directory==============================  

1)
Date: 07-Sep-2010
From: Muriel Norde < m.norde at rug.nl >
Subject: Exaptation
 

	
-------------------------Message 1 ---------------------------------- 
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 13:01:58
From: Muriel Norde [m.norde at rug.nl]
Subject: Exaptation

E-mail this message to a friend:
http://linguistlist.org/issues/emailmessage/verification.cfm?iss=21-3577.html&submissionid=2647094&topicid=3&msgnumber=1
  

Full Title: Exaptation 

Date: 25-Jul-2011 - 30-Jul-2011
Location: Osaka, Japan 
Contact Person: Muriel Norde
Meeting Email: m.norde at rug.nl

Linguistic Field(s): Historical Linguistics 

Call Deadline: 13-Sep-2010 

Meeting Description:

Workshop on exaptation at the 20th International Conference on Historical
Linguistics 2011 

Call For Papers

Convenors: Muriel Norde (University of Groningen) & Freek Van de Velde
(University of Leuven)

This is a proposal for a workshop on exaptation at ICHL 2011 (Osaka, 
Japan). As workshop proposals to ICHL should include a preliminary list of 
participants, we are posting the workshop description to see if there is 
sufficient interest in the topic. Therefore, please send us an e-mail, before 
September 13th, if you are interested; no title or abstract is required at this 
point.

Workshop description

Although some morphological changes seem to obey general tendencies, 
as formulated for instance by Kury?owicz or Ma?czak (see Hock 1986, 
ch.10) or Van Loon (2005), most of these tendencies can just as easily be 
violated. Diachronic morphology is largely idiosyncratic (Joseph 1998). 
Morphological paradigms appear to be ripped up at random in order to 
establish 'local generalizations' (Joseph 1992). One particular way in which 
unpredictable changes come about is through 'bricolage' with junk 
morphology, which goes under the name of exaptation (Lass 1990, 1997: 
316ff.).

Exaptation is a concept that was first used in evolutionary biology, to refer 
to co-optation of a certain trait for a new function.  A typical example is the 
use of feathers, originally serving a thermo-regulatory function, for flight. In
linguistics, exaptation is defined as follows:

'Say a language has a grammatical distinction of some sort, coded by 
means of morphology. Then say this distinction is jettisoned, PRIOR TO the 
loss of the morphological material that codes it. This morphology is now, 
functionally speaking, junk; and there are three things that can in principle 
be done with it:
(i) it can be dumped entirely;
(ii) it can be kept as marginal garbage or nonfunctional/nonexpressive
residue (suppletion, 'irregularity');
(iii) it can be kept, but instead of being relegated as in (ii), it can
be used for something else, perhaps just as systematic.(...)
Option (iii) is linguistic exaptation.'' (Lass 1990: 81-82)

Lass originally understood exaptation in a rather narrow sense. First, the 
term exaptation was reserved for changes affecting functionless (or 'junk')
morphology. Second, in order to qualify as exaptation, the new function of a
morpheme needed to be entirely novel. In Lass's own words: 'Exaptation 
then  is the opportunistic co-optation of a feature whose origin is unrelated 
or only marginally related to its later use. In other words (loosely) a 
'conceptual novelty' or 'invention'.'

Both criteria have been criticized. With regard to the first criterion, Vincent
(1995: 435), Giacalone Ramat (1998), Smith (2006) and Willis (ms.) pointed 
out difficulties with regard to the notion of junk. And indeed, Lass later 
stretched his notion of exaptation, admitting that linguistic exaptation - just 
like biological exaptation - could also affect non-junk morphology (see Lass 
1997: 318), to the effect that the old and the new function may co-exist. 
Doubt has also been raised with regard to the second criterion, the novelty 
of the new function, which is central to the notion of exaptation according to 
Lass (1990: 82) (see also Norde 2001: 244, 2009: 117 and Traugott 2004). 
Some scholars have argued against the purported novelty of the function 
after exaptation (Vincent 1995: 436; Giacalone Ramat 1998, Hopper & 
Traugott 2003: 135-136). If this criterion is jettisoned, we arrive at a fairly 
broad definition of exaptation, like for instance in Booij (2010: 211), who 
defines it as '[t]he re-use of morphological markers'. Such a broad 
conception of exaptation is in line with the notion in evolutionary biology, 
where neither of the two criteria is decisive for the application of the term to 
shifts in function, but the question then arises whether this does not make 
the concept vacuous (see De Cuypere 2005).

Despite these criticisms, exaptation has been used as a convenient label for
morphological changes that at first sight seem to proceed unpredictably, 
e.g. by running counter to grammaticalization clines (see Norde 2009: 115-
118). It has been applied to various cases of morphological change, 
discussed in Lass (1990), Norde (2002), Fudeman (2004), Van de Velde 
(2005, 2006), Narrog (2007), Booij (2010, ms.), Willis (ms.) among others.

In this workshop, we aim to come to terms with exaptation. Apart from 
specific case studies drawing on original data, we welcome papers that 
address the following issues:

(1) Do we need exaptation in diachronic morphology, or does it reduce to 
more traditional mechanisms such as reanalysis and analogy, as e.g. De 
Cuypere (2005) argues?
(2) Does exaptation only apply to morphology (Heine 2003: 173), or is it
relevant to syntactic change as well, as Brinton & Stein (1995) have 
argued?
(3) Does exaptation presuppose irregularity and unpredictability? If so, does
this entail that exaptation is language-specific (as argued by Heine 2003: 
173), and that cross-linguistics generalizations are not possible? See, 
however, Narrog (2007) for evidence to the contrary.
(4) Does exaptation happen primarily in cases of 'system disruption', such 
as typological word order change or deflection (see Norde 2002: 49, 60, 
61)?
(5) How should we define the concept of 'novelty', and is it a useful
criterion for a change to be qualified as exaptation? Currently, there seem 
to be different views in the literature on what is exactly understood by a 
'new' function. Does this mean (a) an entirely new category in the grammar, 
(b) a function unrelated to the morpheme's old function, or (c) a different 
though perhaps not totally unrelated function from the old function?
(6) Is exaptation infrequent (Heine 2003:174, Traugott 2004) and
non-recurrent (as argued by Heine 2003: 172)? Or can one morpheme 
undergo several successive stages of exaptation (as argued by Giacalone 
Ramat 1998: 110-111 with regard to the -sk- suffix and by Van de Velde 
2006 with regard to the Germanic adjective inflection)?
(7) What is the relation between exaptation and grammaticalization? Do 
they refer to fundamentally different kinds of changes (Vincent 1995), is 
exaptation a final stage of grammaticalization (Greenberg 1991, Traugott 
2004), or are exaptation and grammaticalization just two different labels for 
the same type of change? After all, both processes involve reanalysis 
(Narrog 2007), both processes can come about through pragmatic 
strengthening (see Croft 2000: 126-130). Furthermore, if the old and new 
function of the exaptatum co-exist (see above) and if the new function is 
related to the old one, then exaptation involves 'layering' and 'persistence', 
respectively (see Van de Velde 2006: 61-62), which are also key features of 
grammaticalization (see Hopper 1991).
(8) What is the relation between exaptation and degrammaticalization? 
Does exaptation always entail some sort of 'degrammaticalization' (as 
argued by Heine 2003 and arguably Narrog 2007: 9, 18), or does 
exaptation often, but not always, go together with degrammaticalization 
(Norde 2009: 118)?
(9) Is exaptation the same thing as what Greenberg (1991) understands by
'regrammaticalization' and as what Croft (2000) understands by 
'hypoanalysis', or are there significant differences between these concepts? 
And what is the overlap with related concept such as 'functional renewal' 
(Brinton & Stein 1995)?

References

Booij, G. 2010 (to appear). Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford 
University Press.
Booij, G. manuscript. Recycling morphology: Case endings as markers of 
Dutch constructions. 
Brinton, L. & D. Stein. 1995. Functional renewal. In: H. Andersen (ed.),
Historical Linguistics 1993. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 33-47.
Croft, W. 2000. Explaining language change. An evolutionary approach. 
Harlow: Longman.
De Cuypere, L. 2005. Exploring exaptation in language change. Folia 
Linguistica Historica 26: 13-26.
Fudeman, K. 2004. Adjectival agreement vs. adverbal inflection in Balanta.
Lingua 114: 105-23.
Giacalone Ramat, A. 1998. Testing the boundaries of grammaticalization. In: 
A.Giacalone Ramat & P.J. Hopper (eds.), The limits of grammaticalization.
Amsterdam: Benjamins. 227-270.
Greenberg, J.H. 1991. The last stages of grammatical elements: Contractive 
and expansive desemanticization. In: E.C. Traugott & B. Heine (eds.), 
Approaches to grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 301-314.
Heine, B. 2003. On degrammaticalization. In: B.J. Blake & K. Burridge 
(eds.),
Historical linguistics 2001. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 163-179.
Hock, H.H. 1986. Principles of historical linguistics. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Hopper, P.J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. In: E.C. 
Traugott & B. Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization. Amsterdam: 
Benjamins. 17-35.
Hopper, P.J. & E.C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd edn. 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Joseph, B.D. 1992. Diachronic explanation: Putting the speaker back into 
the picture. In: G.W. Davis & G.K. Iverson (eds.), Explanations in historical
linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 123-144.
Joseph, B.D. 1998. Diachronic morphology. In: A. Spencer & A.M. Zwicky 
(eds.), Handbook of morphology. Oxford: Blackell. 351-373.
Lass, R. 1990. How to do things with junk: Exaptation in language evolution.
Journal of Linguistics 26: 79-102.
Lass, R. 1997. Historical linguistics and language change. Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press.
Narrog, H. 2007. Exaptation, grammaticalization, and reanalysis. California
Linguistic Notes 32 (1). .
Norde, M. 2001. Deflexion as a counterdirectional factor in grammatical 
change. Language Sciences 23: 231-264.
Norde, M. 2002. The final stages of grammaticalization: Affixhood and 
beyond. In: I. Wischer & G. Diewald (eds.), New reflections on 
grammaticalization. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 45-81.
Norde, M. 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, J.C. 2006. How to do things without junk: the refunctionalization of a
pronominal subsystem between Latin and Romance. In: J.-P.Y. Montreuil 
(ed.), New perspectives on Romance linguistics. Volume II: Phonetics, 
phonology and dialectology. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 183-205.
Traugott, E.C. 2004. Exaptation and grammaticalization. In: M. Akimoto 
(ed.),Linguistic studies based on corpora. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo. 133-156.
Van de Velde, F. 2005. Exaptatie en subjectificatie in de Nederlandse 
adverbiale morfologie [Exaptation and subjectification in Dutch adverbial 
morphology]. Handelingen der Koninklijke Zuid-Nederlandse Maatschappij 
voor Taal- en Letterkunde en Geschiedenis 58: 105-124.
Van de Velde, F. 2006. Herhaalde exaptatie. Een diachrone analyse van de
Germaanse adjectiefflexie [Iterative exaptation. A diachronic analysis of the
Germanic adjectival inflection]. In: M. Hüning, A. Verhagen, U. Vogl & T. van
der Wouden (eds.), Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels. Leiden: Stichting
Neerlandistiek Leiden. 47-69.
Van Loon, J. 2005. Principles of historical morphology. Heidelberg:
Universitätsverlag Winter.
Vincent, N. 1995. Exaptation and grammaticalization. In: H. Andersen (ed.),
Historical linguistics 1993. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 433-445.
Willis, D. Manuscript. Degrammaticalization and obsolescent morphology: 
Evidence from Slavonic.





-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-21-3577