[Lingtyp] Temporal features?

[David Gil]

Johanna (and all),

The structure of the argument is as follows.  We observe a correlation 
between some structural feature of language and the language's 
associated polity size (with languages of small hunter gatherer groups 
and those of large nation states being at the two opposite ends of the 
scale).  And we have reason to believe that the correlation reflects a 
causal relationship, from polity type to language.  On this basis, given 
that until relatively recently, polity sizes were all small, resembling 
those of today's hunter gatherer's, we may then infer that ancient 
languages were more like contemporary small-polity languages than like 
their large-polity counterparts.

In this way, typology (including experimental cross-linguistic studies 
of contemporary languages) may provide a window into phylogeny and the 
evolution of language(s).

David


On 01/10/2018 22:14, Johanna NICHOLS wrote:
> What are "ancient languages" and "contemporary languages" or "more
> recent languages"?  I gather all of those you're studying are spoken
> now, so all are contemporary.  And the origins of language descent
> lines go back farther than we can trace so we can't give them
> different ages.
>
> Johanna
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 8:05 AM David Gil <gil at shh.mpg.de> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> On 01/10/2018 17:05, Hartmut Haberland wrote:
>>
>> I have been told that in Florutz German (spoken in an Alpine valley) you have to put the potatoes that you have peeled down or up into the dish depending on whether the dish is between you and the stream in the middle of the valley (‘down’) or you are between the stream and the dish (‘up’). That might be a myth, but it is a nice story. Hartmut
>>
>> An analogous system is certainly no myth in many dialects of Malay/Indonesian (as well as their respective substrate languages).
>>
>> But I would like to offer a complete different example of a "temporal feature".  Earlier in this thread there was mention of work by Trudgill and others suggesting that small societies (of the kind that were more widespread in past eras) are more conducive to linguistic complexity.  For the past several years I have been engaging in an experimental project measuring the complexity of thematic role assignment across the world's languages, and my findings are that greater grammatical complexity in this domain actually correlates positively with greater socio-political complexity (and hence, by implication, with more recent languages).  So for example, larger contemporary languages are more likely to distinguish agents from patients than smaller contemporary and hence presumably also ancient ones.  (These findings need not be construed as contradictory to the Trudgill et al position, since both the grammatical domains and the time frames are different in the two studies.)
>>
>> (Unfortunately, I don't yet have a written reference to offer. I've presented these results at several conferences, including ALT, and have an unpublished extended abstract to offer anybody who's interested. But I'm still working on writing up the complete study.)
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> --
>> David Gil
>>
>> Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
>> Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
>> Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany
>>
>> Email: gil at shh.mpg.de
>> Office Phone (Germany): +49-3641686834
>> Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81281162816
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lingtyp mailing list
>> Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp

-- 
David Gil

Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History
Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany

Email: gil at shh.mpg.de
Office Phone (Germany): +49-3641686834
Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81281162816