Building social cognitive models of language change

Pécs: Lingua Franca Csoport, 254 p. (ISBN:963642049-1), 2005

ICAME Journal, 2018

Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4(1): 124. 1–30., 2019

The relation between language change and the process of language evolution is controversial in current linguistic theory. Some authors believe that the two processes are completely unrelated, while for others the evolution of language is (at least in part) a consequence of linguistic changes. Both models imply a very different assessment of what is changing when languages themselves change. I present an explicit model of what changes when languages change, and I show that the claim that language change is a crucial factor in explaining the evolution of human language, although suggestive and very popular, faces problems of a theoretical and empirical nature.

CBDA is a relative newcomer to the world of internationally recognized conferences addressing the history of the English language. The main objective of the conference, created in 2008, is to provide colleagues working in France and abroad with an opportunity to explore linguistic phenomena from a diachronic perspective and to discuss their theoretical implications. A second goal was to awaken interest in France in the study of English from a variationist perspective, across a number of fields including dialectology, historical and socio-historical linguistics. Since 2008, CBDA has been held every two years alternately at the universities of Amiens and Tours; but thanks to an enlarged network of scholars involved, the 2015 edition is to be organized by the University of Reims-Champagne-Ardenne in the beautiful medieval city of Troyes. Ever since its creation CBDA has enjoyed the financial backing of two research groups: LLL (Laboratoire Ligérien de Linguistique, UMR 7270) and Corpus (EA 4295). Their unfailing support is gratefully acknowledged here. More specifically, concerning the organization of CBDA-3, the organizers wish to express their gratitude to the Corpus team, to the University of Picardie, and to Professor Pierre Sicard for all their help and support. In all, some 40 papers were presented at CBDA-3. The abstracts are available on the conference website (www.cbdaconference.org/). Only 12 papers appear in the present volume, though others might have been published elsewhere.

Articles authored/co-authored by MHC: Connectionist models of speech processing;

In F. La Mantia, I. Licata & P. Perconti (eds), Language in Complexity – The Emerging Meaning. New York : Springer, 49-72., 2017

Language evolution is the subject of various theoretical studies, following two main paths: one, where language is viewed as a code between meanings and forms to express them, with a focus on language as a social convention; and the other defining language as a set of grammatical rules governing the production of utterances, evolution being the outcome of mistakes in the acquisition process. We claim that none of the current models provides a satisfactory account of the grammaticalization phenomenon, a linguistic process by which words acquire a grammatical status. We argue that this limitation is mainly due to the way these models represent language and communication mechanisms. We therefore introduce a new framework, the “grammatheme,” as a tool which formalizes in an unambiguous way different concepts and mechanisms involved in grammaticalization. The model especially includes an inference mechanism triggering new grammaticalization processes. We present promising preliminary results of a numerical implementation and discuss a possible research program based on this framework.

The Routledge Handbook of Historical Linguistics, 2010

Studia Anglica Posnaniensia

Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 1992

This volume derives from the symposium "The causes of language change: do we know them yet?" at the University of Troms0 in 1987. The papers offer no major breakthroughs in understanding the causes of linguistic change, nor does any cohesive overview emerge of why languages change. Nevertheless, this collection does contain valuable contributions. The views of causes and explanation in these papers vary greatly in scale and orientation. They range from explications of individual changes to rather abstract, programmatic overviews. Most of the papers do not indicate what they mean by "explanation" or "cause". For most linguists, explanation is not the Coseriu-Andersen "rational explication" (p. 7), nor are linguists likely to accept Ureland's assertions of (perhaps better called hopes for) a paradigm shift which makes more room for social and political factors. At the other end of the scale, Ohala (pp. 173-5) argues that all sciences ultimately resort to "probabilistic explanations" which are not fully nomological (exceptionless, lawful), while he avoids teleological explanations, preferring mechanistic ones. And what about "change"? The views represented vary greatly. Ureland would subsume linguistic change under social and political change, and Muhlhausler seems to concur. Andersen follows Coseriu's claim (which Andersen upholds only in part) that linguistic change does not exist (p. 12); Andersen observes that "in linguistics the word 'change' has come to be more of a liability than an asset" (p. 11)! Ohala holds sound change to be non-mentalistic and the lack of change to be the evidence that speakers create rules in their grammars (p. 193). The variety of approaches represented here is best appreciated by reference to the individual papers. Henning Andersen's "Understanding linguistic innovations" is an accessible repetition of his views (published, for example, in Andersen 1975,1980a, 1980b, 1988). This is a programmatic presentation, with no examples, of Andersen's broad-scale approach to linguistic change. Andersen acknowledges extensive inspiration from Coseriu. For Coseriu, the task of the historical linguist is not causal explanation but that of rational explication. Andersen, however, attempts to avoid one of the often-criticized shortcomings of Coseriu's scheme, that of underemphasizing aspects of language change that are not necessarily subject to human will (i.e. certain universals). Central to the Coseriu-Andersen view of language change is the asymmetrical relationship between norms (actual usage) and system (productive rules)-for example, unproductive patterns defined in the norms may be curtailed and superceded by the productive patterns of the system (p. 19). For Andersen, since grammar acquisition is based on abduction, divergent interpretations of the same usage are possible. Different speakers are capable of producing usage which conforms to the same norms in spite of differences in their internal grammatical systems (p. 19).

Journal of Pragmatics, 1997

This is a translation of Keller's (1990) book Sprachwandel; the translation includes a new section (§5.2) not in the first German edition. Keller's book has already had considerable influence in historical linguistics but is also of interest to pragmatics, because of Keller's attempt to focus the problem of language change where it actually occurs: in conversational interaction between interlocutors. The book is written for a general audience: very few examples of language changes, all references in endnotes rather than the text, many analogies and comparisons to nonlinguistic phenomena. It succeeds well in this respect; it is well-written, which means also well-translated, with English examples at all but the most crucial points. Ideas are introduced and reintroduced cleverly, with a buildup to Keller's theory and then a slightly more technical drawing out of consequences. The analogies and comparisons to nonlinguistic phenomena are actually central to the theoretical point to the book, since Keller takes his inspiration largely from classical and neoclassical economic theory. Chapter 1 ('The problem of language change') establishes the empirical fact the languages are always changing-the fact that this book intends to explain. And Keller then introduces the basic themes that will form the basis of his model. Language change must be reduced to linguistic acts by individuals; one must not hypostatize language as a source of linguistic causation. Linguistic acts of communication are themselves carried out to achieve human interactional goals. And changing language is not in itself one of those interactional goals. Instead, language change :arises indirectly as a result of the process of conversation. A corollary of these premises is that in order to explain language change, one must provide a functional theory of linguistic behavior (language use)-and indeed, reference to theories of intention, action and convention figure throughout the book. These premises are all worth repeating. Many theorists in historical linguistics, some of whom Keller discusses but many of whom he passes over, commit the fallacies that Keller attempts to dispel with these premises repeatedly throughout the I am grateful to Mira Ariel, Martin Haspelmath, Elizabeth Traugott and Nigel Vincent for comments on an earlier version of this review. None of the aforenamed necessarily endorse the views expressed herein.

2010

In the thesis it is discussed in what ways concepts and methodology developed in evolutionary biology can be applied to the explanation and research of language change. The parallel nature of the mechanisms of biological evolution and language change is explored along with the history of the exchange of ideas between these two disciplines. Against this background computational methods developed in evolutionary biology are taken into consideration in terms of their applicability to the study of historical relationships between languages. Different phylogenetic methods are explained in common terminology, avoiding the technical language of statistics. The thesis is on one hand a synthesis of earlier scientific discussion, and on the other an attempt to map out the problems of earlier approaches in addition to finding new guidelines in the study of language change on their basis. Primarily literature about the connections between evolutionary biology and language change, along with research articles describing applications of phylogenetic methods into language change have been used as source material. The thesis starts out by describing the initial development of the disciplines of evolutionary biology and historical linguistics, a process which right from the beginning can be seen to have involved an exchange of ideas concerning the mechanisms of language change and biological evolution. The historical discussion lays the foundation for the handling of the generalised account of selection developed during the recent few decades. This account is aimed for creating a theoretical framework capable of explaining both biological evolution and cultural change as selection processes acting on self-replicating entities. This thesis focusses on the capacity of the generalised account of selection to describe language change as a process of this kind. In biology, the mechanisms of evolution are seen to form populations of genetically related organisms through time. One of the central questions explored in this thesis is whether selection theory makes it possible to picture languages are forming populations of a similar kind, and what a perspective like this can offer to the understanding of language in general. In historical linguistics, the comparative method and other, complementing methods have been traditionally used to study the development of languages from a common ancestral language. Computational, quantitative methods have not become widely used as part of the central methodology of historical linguistics. After the fading of a limited popularity enjoyed by the lexicostatistical method since the 1950s, only in the recent years have also the computational methods of phylogenetic inference used in evolutionary biology been applied to the study of early language history. In this thesis the possibilities offered by the traditional methodology of historical linguistics and the new phylogenetic methods are compared. The methods are approached through the ways in which they have been applied to the Indo-European languages, which is the most thoroughly investigated language family using both the traditional and the phylogenetic methods. The problems of these applications along with the optimal form of the linguistic data used in these methods are explored in the thesis. The mechanisms of biological evolution are seen in the thesis as parallel in a limited sense to the mechanisms of language change, however sufficiently so that the development of a generalised account of selection is deemed as possibly fruiful for understanding language change. These similarities are also seen to support the validity of using phylogenetic methods in the study of language history, although the use of linguistic data and the models of language change employed by these models are seen to await further development.

Journal of English Linguistics, 2001

The vast literature on the reasons why human languages inevitably change through time focuses on two types of causation, "functional" and "social." My purpose here is to explore a third category of explanation, one that has largely been ignored or dismissed as seemingly inconsequential: I argue that a chance/chaos model of linguistic change is a necessary and important supplement to functional and social explanations.

A construction grammar approach is presented to changes to language as a system that is both communicative and cognitive (Traugott and Trousdale 2013). Constructionalization is defined as the development of form new -meaning new pairs and constructional changes as changes to features of constructions. The approach requires focus on form and meaning equally. Constructionalization is shown to encompass and go beyond both grammaticalization and lexicalization, which are conceptualized as on a continuum. The framework favors thinking in terms of analogizing to sets and schemas as well as of gradual (micro-step) reanalyses. The ability to see how networks, schemas, and micro-constructions are created or grow and decline, as well as the ability to track the development of patterns at both substantive and schematic levels, allows the researcher to see how each micro-construction has its own history within the constraints of larger patterns, most immediately schemas, but also related network nodes.

2013

Language, 2000

NOTICES fragments of Japanese (233-68) and English (269-325). Finally, it should be noted that C does not compare DP with the current dominant theory in generative phonology, optimality theory (OT). In part, this is because OT is a theory of constraint combination, not phonological representation, and thus OT can benefit from the theoretical advances made by C. Conversely, much of the early literature demonstrating the superiority of OT to derivational approaches does not reflect on DP, either. The primary difference between theories is the violability of constraints in OT. Since DP is the more restrictive theory, the burden of proof is on practitioners of OT, who would greatly benefit from a careful reading of this exceptional volume. [STEFAN FRISCH, University of Michigan.] Linguistic structure and linguistic change: Explanation from language processing. By THOMAS BERG. Oxford & New York: Clarendon Press, 1998. Pp. xiii, 336. The objective of this formidable book is to establish a relationship between psycholinguistic processing and linguistic patterns. Berg's approach is to derive predictions from psycholinguistic research and to test them against an impressively wide array of linguistic patterns and diachronic processes as well as those found in poetics. B's case is compelling, though he acknowledges that a successful outcome means that the psycholinguistic approach is merely plausible as it is impossible to eliminate all alternative analyses (65). Although B admits that language is a multifaceted phenomenon that is real at the neurological, physical, sociological, and psychological levels, he adopts a psycholinguistic approach because it bears on all of these levels and because it is a priori feasible given that speaking and hearing are psychological activities so fundamental that productive and perceptual processes are likely to exert influence on the information to be processed, namely, language (54); clearly, B believes that language is NOT autonomous, contrary to many generativists' views. Further, B cautions against eclecticism, as principles that are adopted from one framework are couched in larger, coherent theories, and their explanatory force is eviscerated when that context disappears. B heeds his own advice and seeks to determine how far a single model can take us in explaining language. B's answer is, quite far, although when the relevant disciplines advance enough to be able to assess their contributions, B conjectures that linguistic patterns will undoubtedly be understood as the result of multicausal efforts (279). In Ch. 1, 'On the "art" of explanation' (1-17), B discusses explanation in scientific theory and in fragments of Japanese (233-68) and English (269-325). Finally, it should be noted that C does not compare DP with the current dominant theory in generative phonology, optimality theory (OT). In part, this is because OT is a theory of constraint combination, not phonological representation, and thus OT can benefit from the theoretical advances made by C. Conversely, much of the early literature demonstrating the superiority of OT to derivational approaches does not reflect on DP, either. The primary difference between theories is the violability of constraints in OT. Since DP is the more restrictive theory, the burden of proof is on practitioners of OT, who would greatly benefit from a careful reading of this exceptional volume. [STEFAN FRISCH, University of Michigan.] Linguistic structure and linguistic change: Explanation from language processing. By THOMAS BERG. Oxford & New York: Clarendon Press, 1998. Pp. xiii, 336. The objective of this formidable book is to establish a relationship between psycholinguistic processing and linguistic patterns. Berg's approach is to derive predictions from psycholinguistic research and to test them against an impressively wide array of linguistic patterns and diachronic processes as well as those found in poetics. B's case is compelling, though he acknowledges that a successful outcome means that the psycholinguistic approach is merely plausible as it is impossible to eliminate all alternative analyses (65). Although B admits that language is a multifaceted phenomenon that is real at the neurological, physical, sociological, and psychological levels, he adopts a psycholinguistic approach because it bears on all of these levels and because it is a priori feasible given that speaking and hearing are psychological activities so fundamental that productive and perceptual processes are likely to exert influence on the information to be processed, namely, language (54); clearly, B believes that language is NOT autonomous, contrary to many generativists' views. Further, B cautions against eclecticism, as principles that are adopted from one framework are couched in larger, coherent theories, and their explanatory force is eviscerated when that context disappears. B heeds his own advice and seeks to determine how far a single model can take us in explaining language. B's answer is, quite far, although when the relevant disciplines advance enough to be able to assess their contributions, B conjectures that linguistic patterns will undoubtedly be understood as the result of multicausal efforts (279). In Ch. 1, 'On the "art" of explanation' (1-17), B discusses explanation in scientific theory and in fragments of Japanese (233-68) and English (269-325). Finally, it should be noted that C does not compare DP with the current dominant theory in generative phonology, optimality theory (OT). In part, this is because OT is a theory of constraint combination, not phonological representation, and thus OT can benefit from the theoretical advances made by C. Conversely, much of the early literature demonstrating the superiority of OT to derivational approaches does not reflect on DP, either. The primary difference between theories is the violability of constraints in OT. Since DP is the more restrictive theory, the burden of proof is on practitioners of OT, who would greatly benefit from a careful reading of this exceptional volume. [STEFAN FRISCH, University of Michigan.] Linguistic structure and linguistic change: Explanation from language processing. By THOMAS BERG. Oxford & New York: Clarendon Press, 1998. Pp. xiii, 336. The objective of this formidable book is to establish a relationship between psycholinguistic processing and linguistic patterns. Berg's approach is to derive predictions from psycholinguistic research and to test them against an impressively wide array of linguistic patterns and diachronic processes as well as those found in poetics. B's case is compelling, though he acknowledges that a successful outcome means that the psycholinguistic approach is merely plausible as it is impossible to eliminate all alternative analyses (65). Although B admits that language is a multifaceted phenomenon that is real at the neurological, physical, sociological, and psychological levels, he adopts a psycholinguistic approach because it bears on all of these levels and because it is a priori feasible given that speaking and hearing are psychological activities so fundamental that productive and perceptual processes are likely to exert influence on the information to be processed, namely, language (54); clearly, B believes that language is NOT autonomous, contrary to many generativists' views. Further, B cautions against eclecticism, as principles that are adopted from one framework are couched in larger, coherent theories, and their explanatory force is eviscerated when that context disappears. B heeds his own advice and seeks to determine how far a single model can take us in explaining language. B's answer is, quite far, although when the relevant disciplines advance enough to be able to assess their contributions, B conjectures that linguistic patterns will undoubtedly be understood as the result of multicausal efforts (279). In Ch. 1, 'On the "art" of explanation' (1-17), B discusses explanation in scientific theory and in fragments of Japanese (233-68) and English (269-325). Finally, it should be noted that C does not compare DP with the current dominant theory in generative phonology, optimality theory (OT). In part, this is because OT is a theory of constraint combination, not phonological representation, and thus OT can benefit from the theoretical advances made by C. Conversely, much of the early literature demonstrating the superiority of OT to derivational approaches does not reflect on DP, either. The primary difference between theories is the violability of constraints in OT. Since DP is the more restrictive theory, the burden of proof is on practitioners of OT, who would greatly benefit from a careful reading of this exceptional volume. [STEFAN FRISCH, University of Michigan.] Linguistic structure and linguistic change: Explanation from language processing. By THOMAS BERG. Oxford & New York: Clarendon Press, 1998. Pp. xiii, 336. The objective of this formidable book is to establish a relationship between psycholinguistic processing and linguistic patterns. Berg's approach is to derive predictions from psycholinguistic research and to test them against an impressively wide array of linguistic patterns and diachronic processes as well as those found in poetics. B's case is compelling, though he acknowledges that a successful outcome means that the psycholinguistic approach is merely plausible as it is impossible to eliminate all alternative analyses (65). Although B admits that language is a multifaceted phenomenon that is real at the neurological, physical, sociological, and psychological levels, he adopts a psycholinguistic approach because it bears on all of these levels and because it is a priori feasible given that speaking and hearing are psychological activities so fundamental that productive and perceptual processes are likely to exert influence on the information to be processed, namely, language (54); clearly, B believes that language is...