37.3473, Confs: Workshop at ICHL28: New Perspectives on the Spread of Linguistic Innovations (Iceland)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-37-3473. Thu 22 Oct 2026. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 37.3473, Confs: Workshop at ICHL28: New Perspectives on the Spread of Linguistic Innovations (Iceland)

Moderator: Steven Moran (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Managing Editor: Valeriia Vyshnevetska
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Daniel Swanson
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Editor for this issue: Valeriia Vyshnevetska <valeriia at linguistlist.org>

================================================================


Date: 20-Oct-2026
From: Désirée Kleineberg [desiree.kleineberg at uni-bielefeld.de]
Subject: Workshop at ICHL28: New Perspectives on the Spread of Linguistic Innovations


Thematic Workshop at ICHL28: New Perspectives on the Spread of
Linguistic Innovation
Short Title: ICHL28
Theme: New Perspectives on the Spread of Linguistic Innovations

Date: 26-Jul-2027 - 30-Jul-2027
Location: Reykjavík, Iceland
Meeting URL: https://ichl28.hi.is/

Linguistic Field(s): Historical Linguistics

Submission Deadline: 01-Dec-2026

New perspectives on the spread of linguistic innovations: Theoretical,
empirical, and computational approaches
Thematic workshop at the 28th International Conference on Historical
Linguistics (26-30 July 2027, Reykjavík)
Organizers:
Marius Bartsch (marius.bartsch at uni-bielefeld.de), Bielefeld University
Désirée Kleineberg (desiree.kleineberg at uni-bielefeld.de), Bielefeld
University
How linguistic innovations spread through speech communities and how
both language internal and external factors shape the diffusion of
phenomena of language change have always been pivotal questions in
historical linguistics (see e.g. Coseriu 1988; Weinreich et al. 1968).
Many studies, however, are still at least indirectly grounded in
sociolinguistic research of the second half of the 20th century which
in turn mainly had the rather narrow focus of phonetic variation in
English (see e.g. the theory of propagation by Croft 2000 being based
on Milroy & Milroy 1985; Rogers 1962; Rogers & Shoemaker 1971).
Although the social and cognitive factors involved in diffusion
processes have been evidenced by numerous empirical studies, how
exactly a novel linguistic variant is adopted and conventionalised at
the community level remains a matter of major debate.
Diffusion modelled as S-curves and forecasting of language change
The diffusion of linguistic innovations is traditionally modelled as
an S-curve. The robustness of such a diachronic evolution has been
hypothesised (Croft 2000; Milroy & Milroy 1985), computationally
modelled (Blythe & Croft 2012), descriptively analysed via corpus-data
(Nevalainen 2015) and mathematically tested (Nijs & Van de Velde
2026). As noted, however, by Nijs & Van de Velde (2026: 191), existing
studies on S-curves in language change often show a bias towards being
based on English or French data. Furthermore, the extensive study of
Kerremans (2015) indicates that the conventionalisation of neologisms
may show different patterns. Lastly, the fact that diffusion happens
within both the linguistic and social system is often not sufficiently
reflected (but see Rosemeyer 2014).
Although those theoretical and empirical studies evidencing language
change as evolving in an S-curve-shape, the prediction of future
states of a language on the basis of those observations of older
stages and present-day use is still often seen critically.
Traditionally, language is considered to be unpredictive (e.g. Bauer
1994: 25; Croft 2000: 3; Labov 1994: 10). Advocators of this
perspective consider language to evolve randomly to a certain extent
as it can become subject to new developments that were not yet
foreseeable at the time a prediction is made (e.g. due to new
technologies or political events). Given this context, it is hardly
surprising that predictions about future states of a language have
been quite rare in the past (e.g. Jagger 1940; Kortmann 2001). In
recent research, however, a turn to a more optimistic attitude towards
the possibility of predicting language change can be observed (e.g.
Sigurðardóttir 2024 on language forecasting in Icelandic). For
instance, Nijs & Van de Velde (2026) use the evidenced robustness of
the S-curve-model and consider it a reliable tool to make predictions
about unknown stages of language change. Despite the availability of
new large-scaled corpora and the rise of computational modelling
within linguistics (see Jäger 2019 for an overview) a uniform
methodology to forecast the spread of linguistic innovations is still
far away from being established. Among others, that is one reason why
forecasting language change remains a vibrant subfield whose
opportunities and limitations have not been fully explored yet.
The complex interaction of internal and external factors
There is consensus that both internal and external factors play a role
in the progressing diffusion of a linguistic innovation. However,
which factors are at play and how they interact still has to be
analysed in more detail. For instance, while Croft (2000) assumed
speech communities to resolve competition within a system by either
differentiation or substitution, De Smet et al. (2018) evidence the
importance of attraction in addition to those processes. Furthermore,
De Mulder & Lamiroy (2012) hypothesised the speed of
grammaticalisation processes being influenced by various social
factors (community size, language contact, ties within a community).
Although often being mentioned as plausible factors, the correlation
between the diffusion of a novel variant and external factors such as
language contact influencing it needs to be empirically investigated
further (see e.g. Walkden et al. 2023). While assuming
conventionalisation and individual entrenchment to be closely
interrelated (Schmid 2020), the exact interplay between individuals
and the speech community (micro and macro-level) still has to be
empirically analysed in more detail as well (see e.g. Blythe & Croft
2021; Petré & Van de Velde 2018; see e.g. Nevalainen 2018 for a study
focusing on the role of specific central innovators).
The research on the role of internal and external factors in the
diffusion of linguistic innovations mainly focuses on conventionalised
constructions in modern stages (Selig 2011: 257f). However, how and
why novel linguistic variants do not catch onto the community level
has not drawn major attention yet (Kranich & Breban 2021: 1).
Nonetheless, in order to better understand the underlying mechanisms
of the propagation of linguistic innovations, the development of
declined constructions and the reasons for their decrease in frequency
and/or growing restrictions also have to be considered. To date, the
research on loss and decrease is mostly limited to rather isolated
case studies, which focus primarily on either internal or external
factors (see e.g. Los 2002 on English man-impersonals; Langer 2001 on
German tun auxiliary). Although more recent studies systematically
consider the interrelation between influencing factors (see e.g. Kempf
2021 on German so-relatives; Kleineberg 2026 on the French verbal
periphrasis <aller ‘to go’ + V-ant>), it is still not clear how to
exactly model decline, if possible at all (e.g. with regard to
gradualness, possible frequency thresholds and the balancing of
internal versus external factors; see Rosemeyer 2014: 87-96 for an
overview).
We invite empirical and theoretical contributions focusing on the
diffusion and decline of linguistic innovations within speech
communities and language systems. Talks may address, but are not
limited to, the following issues:
- How well do both the established S-curves and other curves serve as
models for the diffusion of linguistic innovations?
- What insights about processes of language change and new methods can
be used to make predictions about future states of a language?
- Which internal and external factors play a role in the spread of
linguistic innovations? How can their complex interaction be examined?
- Which linguistic factors and which social conditions cause diffusion
to halt or to reverse the development?
Abstracts should include a descriptive title, main text and
references. The maximum length for the abstract (excluding references)
is 500 words. Deadline for paper abstracts is 1 December 2026. Please
submit your paper via EasyAbs by indicating the workshop 15:
https://easyabs.linguistlist.org/conference/ICHL28/
More info on the conference: https://ichl28.hi.is/
References:
Bauer, Laurie. 1994. Watching English change: An introduction to the
study of linguistic change in Standard Englishes in the twentieth
century. London: Longman.
Blythe, Richard & William Croft. 2012. S-curves and the mechanisms of
propagation in language change. Language 88(2). 269–304.
Blythe, Richard & William Croft. 2021. How individuals change
language. Plos One 16(6).
Coseriu, Eugenio. 1988. Linguistic change does not exist. In Jörn
Albrecht (ed.), Energia and Ergon, vol. I, 147–157. Tübingen: Narr.
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary
approach. London: Longman.
De Mulder, Walter & Béatrice Lamiroy. 2012. Gradualness of
grammaticalization in Romance: The position of French, Spanish and
Italian. In Kristin Davidse, Tine Breban, Lieselotte Brems & Tanja
Mortelsmans (eds.), Grammaticalization and language change. New
reflections (Studies in Language Companion Series), 199–226. Amsterdam
& Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
De Smet, Hendrik; Frauke D’Hoedt; Lauren Fonteyn & Kristel Van
Goethem. 2018. The changing functions of competing forms: Attraction
and differentiation. Cognitive Linguistics 29(2). 197–234.
Jäger, Gerhard. 2019. Computational Historical Linguistics.
Theoretical Linguistics 45. 151–182.
Jagger, Hubert J. 1940. English in the future. London: Thomas Nelson.
Kempf, Luise. 2021. German so-relatives: Lost in grammatical,
typological, and sociolinguistic change. In Svenja Kranich & Tine
Breban (eds.), Lost in Change. Causes and processes in the loss of
grammatical elements and constructions (Studies in Language Companion
Series (SLCS) 218), 291–332. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kerremans, Daphne. 2015. A web of new words: A corpus-based study of
the conventionalization of process of English neologisms.
Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.
Kleineberg, Désirée. 2026. Évolution de la périphrase <aller + V-ant>:
Analyse des facteurs contextuels de son déclin du 15e au 18e siècle.
Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 142(1). 42–78.
Kortmann, Bernd. 2001. “In the year 2525… Reflections on the future
shape of English”. Anglistik 12. 97–114.
Kranich, Svenja & Tine Breban. 2021. Lost in Change. In Svenja Kranich
& Tine Breban (eds.), Lost in change. Causes and processes in the loss
of grammatical elements and constructions (Studies in Language
Companion Series (SLCS) 218), 1–20. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of linguistic change: Internal
factors. Oxford: Blackwell.
Langer, Nils. 2001. Linguistic purism in action: how auxiliary tun was
stigmatized in Early New High German (Studia Linguistica Germania 60).
Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.
Los, Bettelou. 2002. The loss of the indefinite pronoun man. In Teresa
Fanego, María José López-Couso & Javier Pérez-Guerra (eds.), English
historical syntax and morphology, 181–202. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Milroy, James & Lesley Milroy. 1985. Linguistic change, social network
and speaker innovation. Journal of linguistics 21. 339–384.
Nevalainen, Terttu. 2015. Descriptive adequacy of S-curve model in
diachronic studies of language change. In Christina
Sanchez-Stockhammer (ed.), Can we predict language change? (Studies in
variation, contacts and change in English 16). Helsinki: VARIENG
Nevalainen, Terttu. 2018. From speaker innovation to lexical change: A
sociohistorical approach to neologisms. Pragmatics & Cognition 25(1).
8–29.
Nijs, Julie & Freek Van de Velde. 2026. Testing the performance of
S-curves for language change. Diachronica 43(2). 189–223.
Petré, Peter & Freek Van de Velde. 2018. The real-time dynamics of the
individual and the community in grammaticalization. Language 94.
867–901.
Rogers, Everett M. 1962. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free
Press.
Rogers, Everett M. & Francis Floyd Shoemaker. 1971. Communication of
innovations. 2nd edn. New York: Free Press.
Rosemeyer, Malte. 2014. Auxiliary selection in Spanish: Gradience,
gradualness, and conservation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Sandberg, Anders; Stuart Armstrong; Rebecca Gorman & Rei England.
2021. Sigmoids behaving badly: Why they usually cannot predict the
future as well as they seem to promise. arXiv. Online:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2109.08065
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2020. The dynamics of the linguistic system: Usage,
conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Selig, Maria. 2011. Distanzsprachliche Mündlichkeit: Zur (rustica)
romana lingua im Konzil von Tours und in den Straßburger Eiden. In
Anja Overbeck, Wolfgang Schweickard & Harald Völker (eds.), Lexikon,
Varietät, Philologie. Romanistische Studien, 255–281. Berlin & Boston:
De Gruyter.
Sevenants, Anthe & Dirk Speelman. 2021. Keeping up with the neighbors:
An agent-based simulation of the divergence of the standard Dutch
pronunciations in the Netherlands and Belgium. Computational
Linguistics in the Netherlands Journal 11. 5–26.
Sigurðardóttir, Sigríður Sæunn. 2024. Language forecasting: With focus
on variation and change in Icelandic. New Haven, CT: Yale University
dissertation.
Walkden, George; Gemma Hunter McCarley; Raquel Montero; Molly Rolf;
Sarah Einhaus & Henri Kauhanen. 2023. Sociolinguistic typology meets
historical corpus linguistics. Transactions of the Philological
Society 121(3). 546–567.
Weinreich, Uriel; William Labov & Marvin I. Herzog. 1968. Empirical
foundations for a theory of language change. In Winfred P. Lehmann
(ed.), Directions for historical linguistics, 95–195. Austin:
University of Texas Press.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

********************** LINGUIST List Support ***********************
Please consider donating to the Linguist List, a U.S. 501(c)(3) not for profit organization:

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=87C2AXTVC4PP8

LINGUIST List is supported by the following publishers:

Australian Linguistics Society https://als.asn.au/Home

Bloomsbury Publishing http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/

Cambridge University Press http://www.cambridge.org/linguistics

Cascadilla Press http://www.cascadilla.com/

De Gruyter Brill https://www.degruyterbrill.com/?changeLang=en

Edinburgh University Press http://www.edinburghuniversitypress.com

European Language Resources Association (ELRA) http://www.elra.info

John Benjamins http://www.benjamins.com/

Language Science Press http://langsci-press.org

MDPI Languages https://www.mdpi.com/journal/languages

MIT Press http://mitpress.mit.edu/

Multilingual Matters http://www.multilingual-matters.com/

Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG http://www.narr.de/

Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics / Landelijke (LOT) http://www.lotpublications.nl/

Peter Lang AG http://www.peterlang.com

SIL International Publications http://www.sil.org/resources/publications

University of Toronto Press https://utppublishing.com


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-37-3473
----------------------------------------------------------