In this course, we will look at various ways in which language typology and language change are relevant to each other. At least the three following interactions can be distinguished:

It has long been recognized that reconstructed protolanguages must be typologically possible (or plausible), not only plausible as sources for the various daughter languages. This insight led, for instance, to a major reassessment of the phonological reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European (e.g. Kortlandt 1985).

Just like synchronic typology studies the limits of synchronic variation, diachronic typology studies the limits of diachronic changes. Not all imaginable kinds of change actually occur, and this makes it possible to be reasonably certain about many cases where in principle a prehistoric change could have gone in both directions.

More recently, it has been suggested that diachronic typology is relevant to synchronic typology in that it serves as an intermediate link in explaining the synchronic distribution of language types: not all changes are possible, and hence not all synchronic states are possible (cf. Greenberg 1968, Hawkins 1990, Bybee 2003+). Thus, a true explanation of typological facts has to look for explanations for language change. A large amount of attention has recently been given to grammaticalization and its constraint of unidirectionality (e.g. Lehmann 1995, Haspelmath 1999a), and we will review those aspects of grammaticalization theory most relevant for typology. Moreover, it has been argued by a number of linguists that the functional motivations that can be given for synchronic restrictions must actually have a clear diachronic component: as in biological evolutionary theory, functional adaptation must have happened in history, and purely synchronic functional explanation is impossible (Bybee 1988, Haspelmath 1999b, 2003+, Croft 2000).

Bybee, Joan L. 1988. "The diachronic dimension in explanation." In: John A. Hawkins (ed.) Explaining language universals. Oxford: Blackwell, 350-379.

Bybee, Joan L. 2003+. "Mechanisms of change as universals of language." Ms., University of New Mexico.

Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. London: Longman.

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1969. Some methods of dynamic comparison in linguistics. In J. Puhvel (ed.) Substance and structure of language, 147-203. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Haspelmath, Martin. 1999a. "Why is grammaticalization irreversible?" Linguistics 37.6: 1043-68.

Haspelmath, Martin. 1999b. "Optimality and diachronic adaptation." Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 18.2: 180-205.

Haspelmath, Martin. 2003+. "Creating economical morphosyntactic patterns in language change." Ms., MPI for Evolutionary Anthropology.

Hawkins, John A. (1990) Seeking motives for change in typological variation. In: Croft, William et al. (eds.) Studies in typology and diachrony. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 95-128.

Kortlandt, F. 1985. Proto-Indo-European glottalic stops: the comparative evidence." Folia Linguistica Historica 6:183-201.

Lehmann, Christian. 1995. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom Europa.

[Back ]