R: language shift

[Paolo Ramat]

Dear Tasaku,
the question  you are asking would require a long answer; maybe a book...
The first point is: what do we mean by 'more complex language' and 'simpler
language'?
The drift toward simplicity has been advocated also in the diachronic
development of a single linguistic tradition: but is, e.g.,  Modern Greek
'simpler' (i.e. more regular and therefore with easy predictable
morphological morphemes) than Ancient Greek? If one thinks of the verbal
system  the answer is certainly 'no'. The same holds for the Romance
languages when compared with Latin. A complex construction such as _Qu'est
ce que c'est (que)_ didn't exist in Classical Latin!
And as far as Scottish Gaelic is concerned: is the phonemic system of
English really simpler than that of Scott.Gael.? I would like to quote a
statement by Vennemann (1989:14):" In any system of sufficient complexity,
any ameliorative  move may have bad consequences, improvement in such a
system can only be improvement on a given parameter of
evaluation",Vennemann, Theo. 1989. "Language change as language improvement"
. In: Modelli esplicativi della diacronia linguistica. Atti del Conv. della
Soc. Ital. di Glottol., a c. di V. Orioles. Giardini, Pisa: 11-35.
If this is true the concepts of simplicity and complexity have to be
relativized. For instance, the simplification/optimization of the syllable
structure may have 'bad' consequences for the morphology; and the
development of the aspectual system we find in many creoles may make the
grammar of these languages more complex.

Best regards,
Paolo

----- Original Message -----
From: Tasaku Tsunoda <tsunoda at TOOYOO.L.U-TOKYO.AC.JP>
To: <LINGTYP at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG>
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 7:45 AM
Subject: language shift


> 21 March 2003
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>     Re: Language shift and morphological complexity
>
>    I am writing to seek your advice.
>
>    In general, the causes for language shift are extra-linguistic, such as
> economic and political factors. But I am interested to know if there is
any
> correlation between language shift and morphological complexity.
>    There are at least two directions of language shift:
>    (1) from a more complex language to a simpler one
>    (2) from a simpler one to a more complex one
> Most instances of language shift appear to be of Type (1), e.g. a shift
from
> Scottish Gaelic to English, and from an Australian Aboriginal language to
> English. It seems that, in language shift situations throughout the word,
> the target language is (almost always ?) morphologically the simpler, e.g.
> English in Scotland and Australia, and Spanish in South America.
>
>    Now, my questions are the following.
>
> Question 1
>    Are there any attested instances of Type (2) ? Are there any references
?
>
> Question 2
>    If (2) is attested, then are attested instances of Type (1) more
numerous
> than those of Type (2) ? That is, is there any correlation between (i) the
> frequency of language shift and (ii) morphological complexity ? (I would
> imagine that (1) would be more common than (2).) Are there any references
?
>
> Question 3
>    If (2) is attested, then does Type (1) progress faster than Type (2) ?
> That is, is there any correlation between (i) the speed of language shift
> and (ii) morphological complexity ? (I would imagine that (1) progresses
> faster than (2).) Are there any references ?
>
>    I look forward to receiving your advice.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Tasaku Tsunoda
>
> --
> Tasaku Tsunoda
> Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology
> University of Tokyo
> Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-0033, Japan
>
> Phone: +81-3-5841-3790
> Fax:   +81-3-5803-2784
>