Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

How syntactic structure emerged in Indo-European languages

Freek Van de Velde (University of Leuven / FWO)

freek.vandevelde@arts.kuleuven.be

http://wwwling.arts.kuleuven.be/nedling_e/fvandevelde/

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

Language change • The rate of change in languages is fast:

– Cultural evolution

– Sounds may change within one generation

– Words have a linguistic half-life of roughly 2k – 4k years. Some highly frequent words have half-lives of 10k or 20k years. (Pagel et al. 2013). Non-cognates: Old English niman vs. tacan

– But even cognates tend to be mutilated beyond recognition within several thousand, or even hundred years: English lɔːd < Old English hláfweard

• Grammar:

– Grammar (syntax and morphology) is more stable than phonology

– Eppur Si Muove

– Long-term ‘drifts’

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

Some background

Atkinson et al. (2005:215)

Grimm’s law

High G. cons. shift

Difficulties: - lateral transfer (contact, wave model) - homoplasy (parallel drift) (/o:/ > /u:/ in German

and English) - differential speed in language change (non-

uniformitarianism, see Croft, ms.)

Collapse of aorist

and perfect in new

preterite

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

Indo-European road roller invasion

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

Indo-European road roller scenario

• What happens when a language spreads over a large area?

• Note: difference between population vs. cultural areal spread

• Do they become more complex or simpeler?

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

One step back

• What exactly is complexity? (Dahl 2004; Hawkins 2004; Sampson et al. 2009)

• Morphological complexity (‘syntheticity’): inflection

• Syntactic complexity (‘analyticity’): word order and function words

Quechua (cited in Hengeveld 1989:142) English pay-ka shamu-nga-m-ári We work he-TOP come-FUT.3-FIRSTHAND-REINF we work(-Ø) 'He will definitely come’

English John thought that Bill hates the fact that Mary loves Kate. all these beautiful paintings (no permutations possible) He could have worked

• Time-honoured idea: Trade-off between analyticity and syntheticity

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

From: Szmrecsanyi (2012) and Ehret & Szmrecsanyi (2012)

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

From: Szmrecsanyi (2012) and Ehret & Szmrecsanyi (2012)

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

From: Szmrecsanyi (2012) and Ehret & Szmrecsanyi (2012)

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

From: Szmrecsanyi (2012) and Ehret & Szmrecsanyi (2012)

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

From: Szmrecsanyi (2012) and Ehret & Szmrecsanyi (2012)

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

Intermezzo

• Where does inflection come from?

• Grammaticalisation (Hopper & Traugott 2003, Narrog & Heine 2011, Deutscher 2005)

– Perpetual renovation of grammar through recycling

– Cline: content word > grammatical word > clitic > inflectional affix

• Examples:

– Germanic: work + did > worked

PIE*uert- ‘turn’ > PdD worden

– Romance: kanta bhumos > cantabimus

cantare habemus > chanterons

chanterons > allons chanter

• Can be replicated in agent-based modeling (Beuls & Steels 2013)

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

Indo-European road roller scenario

"A straightforward hypothesis is that a language (…) becomes simpler the more it has been confronted with demands of generalized outsiders." (Kusters 2008:14)

"It would [...] be a mistake to suggest that language contact causes either simplification or complexification; it clearly produces both. This has caused considerable bewilderment in the literature, including in my own writing.“ (Trudgill 2010:309)

Lupyan & Dale (2010): “Language structure is partly determined by social structure”

• 'Esoteric‘ languages: morphologic complexity, redundance, favouring L1 acquisition, patterns with smaller languages

• 'Exoteric‘ languages: analytic-syntactic complexity, transparency, favouring L2 acquisition, patterns with bigger languages

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

Population size inversely correlates with

morphological complexity

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

Population size inversely correlates with

morphological complexity

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

Morphological simplification

• Bentz & Winter (2013): “Languages with more second language learners tend to lose nominal case”

– Directly looking at L2, as opposed to the proxy of population size

– Diachronic implications

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

Back to Indo-European • Research in simplexification / complexification is often focused on

morphology, i.e. the rise, maintenance or loss of nominal case and verbal inflection

• What about syntactic complexity?

– Deutscher (2000): rise of complement clauses in Akkadian is related to the complexification of the Babylonic society.

– Complex noun phrases (NPs) are not universal, but are a typical feature of (Indo-)European language (Rijkhoff 1998, 2002).

• Indo-European languages show a drift of ‘deflection’. Concomitantly (but not necessarily as an immediate mechanic result) they rely increasingly on hierarchical, integrated phrases.

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

Nouns and noun phrases

• A noun phrase is the syntactic group comprising the noun and its dependents.

• Simplifying: the NP is the group of words that can occupy:

– the position of the direct object (I saw ___)

– the position after a preposition (of ___)

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

• How do languages differ in the expression of NP-like structures?

morphological expression of nominal categories (definiteness, number, …), no fixed order (non-configurational)

flat ('democratic')

Cipa-yi ṱuku-yu yaun-tu yani cayi

this-ERG dog-ERG big-ERG white_man bite

'this big dog bit/bites the white man'

(Kalkatungu, Blake 1983:145, quoted in Rijkhoff 2002:19-20)

specialised slots for the expression of nominal categories (definiteness, number ...) , fixed order (configurational)

hierarchical ('feudal')

[NP thisD [ bigA [ dogN ] ] ]

Mixed:

a sheyn meydl vs. a meydl a sheyne

a pretty girl a girl, a petty (one)

(Yiddish, Jacobs et al. 1994:408, quoted in Rijkhoff 1998:324)

NAff NAff NAff

NP

D

Num

A

N

this dog big

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

Against universality of NP structure

• Grammatical categories are language-specific (Dryer 1997; Croft 2001; Haspelmath 2007; Evans & Levinson 2009; Bickel 2010).

• Non-universality of NP structure (see Matthews 1981, 2007; Evans & Levinson 2009:440-442)

• What counts as evidence for phrasal structure?

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

Against universality of NP structure

• What are reliable diagnostics of phrasal structure?

– Semantics: 'what belongs together forms a constituent'

• Problem: What does 'belong to' mean? All sorts of element that 'belong to the noun' are cross-linguistically found to be expressed outside the NP, verbally or adverbially (quantifiers, deixis, modifiers, secondary predicates, external possessors ...)

• E.g. Ihm schmerzt der Bauch vs. His belly aches

– Pronominalisation (Zwicky 1978; McCawley 1988; Carnie 2002:50-51; Van Valin 2001:111-112) • He ate the remaining slice of cranberry cake ~ He ate it

• Problem: does not work (Croft 2001:188; Keizer 2011, 2012; Van de Velde 2012)

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

Against universality of NP structure

• What are reliable diagnostics of phrasal structure?

– Contiguity: constituency requires contiguous expression (Robinson 1970; Koster 1978; Sturm 1986; Verhagen 1992, 1996; Langacker 1997; Croft 2001; Evans & Levinson 2009:440-442; Van de Velde 2009a, 2012)

• Problem: extraposition of postmodifiers (We have several important books in stock about global warming)

• But if they can be extraposed, they are introduced by a 'relator', which is an alternative to syntactic phrase structure. The existence of phrase structure in a language does not preclude the use of other means to express semantic relations.

• In general postmodifiers are less integrated (Verhaar 1998:102; Plank 2003:346; Croft 2009)

– Ordering constraints (in the sense of Payne & Huddleston 2002:452): subparts of constituents shouldn't be freely switched around.

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

No noun phrases in Proto-Indo-European

• PIE has a word-based syntax, rather than a phrase-based syntax

"die Beziehung selbst bekommt keinen unmittelbaren Ausdruck, sie kann keinen bekommen; die Wörter werden zunächst nur aneinander gerückt, wie die Steine einer kyklopischen Mauer; kein Kitt oder Mörtel verbindet sie, die Kluft wird schliesslich durch kleine Keile ausgefüllt" (Schuchardt, 1922)

Illustration: Cyclop wall (Courtesy Joop van der Horst)

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

Rise of phrasal structure in the nominal domain

• If languages differ in the extent to which they have integrated NPs, then so can language stages.

• Controversial (it revives old ideas about people in the recent past being more primitive)…

• … but not crackpot, similar ideas in: – Faarlund (2001) – Meillet & Vendryes (1924) – Meillet (1934) – Von Wartburg (1962) – Krause (1968) – Lehmann (1974) – Van de Velde (2009a, b) – Luraghi (2010) – Perridon & Sleeman (2011) – Ledgeway (2011, 2012) – Van de Velde et al. (forthc.) – Börjars et al. (subm.)

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

Rise of phrasal structure in the nominal domain

• PIE did not have NPs of the type [NP black sheep]

– PIE does not make a distinction between nouns and adjectives

• Alleged adjectives are inflectionally indistinguishable from nouns

• Alleged nouns can be used as adjectives without derivational morphology

• Adjective-noun agreement is often violated

• Gradation is not restricted to adjectives

– PIE does not have attributive modifiers

• Alleged modifiers are not contiguously expressed

• Alleged modifiers can have their own NP markers

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

Rise of phrasal structure in the nominal

domain

• PIE does not make a distinction between nouns (sheep) and adjectives (black)

– Compare Quechua or Turkish (Schachter 1985; Hengeveld 1992; Stassen 1997)

– Alleged adjectives are inflectionally indistinguishable from nouns (Bammesberger 1992:52; Kurzová 1993:41)

– Alleged nouns can be used as adjectives without derivational morphology (and vice versa) (Brugmann & Delbrück 1889:436, 444-448)

Example Noun Adjective

nātus (Latin) 'son' 'born'

ūber (Latin) 'udder' 'rich'

srutá-m, srutá-s (Old Indic) 'flood' 'streaming'

pinut-ós, pinut-ḗ (Greek) 'reason' 'reasonable'

takšul (Hittite) 'peace' 'friendly'

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

Rise of phrasal structure in the nominal domain

• PIE does not make a disinction between nouns and adjectives

– Adjective-noun agreement is often violated (Lehmann 1974:69-70; Brugmann & Delbrück 1893:402-410; Hirt 1927:330-332; 1934:143-144; Lehmann 1974:69-73; Van de Velde 2009a:171-173, 2009b:1026-1027)

– Gradation is not restricted to adjectives (Brugmann and Delbrück 1893:415-416; Hirt 1934: 147; Lehmann 1995:156, 227)

• kavítara (poet:COMPARATIVE) / kavítama (poet:SUPERLATIVE) (Old Indic)

• basileúteros (king:COMPARATIVE) / basileútatos (koning:SUPERLATIVE) (Greek)

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

Rise of phrasal structure in the nominal

domain • PIE does not have attributive modifiers

– Alleged modifiers are not contiguously expressed

fílōi epepeítheth‘ hetaírōi

beloved:DAT.M.SG be.persuaded:IND.IPFV.3SG companion:DAT.M.SG

'he obeyed the beloved companion‘ (Greek, Hirt 1937:230)

meo tu epistulam dedisti servo

my:DAT.SG you letter:ACC.SG gave slave:DAT.SG

‘to my slave you gave a letter?’ (Latin, Perridon & Sleeman 2011: 4)

juvám śvētám Pēdáva … adattam áśvam

you:NOM.PL white:ACC.M.SG P. give:ACT.IND.IPFV.2DU horse:ACC.M.SG

'the white horse you gave to P.‘ (Old Indic, Hirt 1937:231)

hantezziyass=a= as ÌR lē

first:NOM and he:NOM servant not

'Let him not be one of [my] ministers‘ (Hittite, Luraghi 1990: 171)

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

Rise of phrasal structure in the nominal

domain

• PIE does not have attributive modifiers

– Alleged modifiers can have their own NP markers (Van de Velde 2009a:183-187)

• CASE (~ dependency reversal, Malchukov 2000) ho hḗmisus toȗ chrónou

art:NOM.M.SG half:NOM.M.SG art:GEN.M.SG time:GEN.M.SG

'half of the time‘ (Greek, Kühner & Gerth 1963:279)

epì tēi hēmiseíai tēs gēs

on ART:DAT.F.SG half:DAT.F.SG ART:GEN.SG earth:GEN.F.SG

'on half of the earth' (Greek, Kühner & Gerth 1963:279)

• ARTICLES

hoi gérontes hoi palaioì

ART:NOM.M.PL old_men:NOM.PL ART:NOM.M.PL elderly:NOM.M.PL

'the elderly old men' (Greek, Krüger & Cooper 2001:429)

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

Crystallisation of NP structure from PGm to PdWG

• Hypothesis: IE saw the emergence and expansion of phrasal structure in the NP, continuing to this day in West Germanic

http://www.tvt.cbi.uni-erlangen.de/eng/research/crystalisation/crystallisation.htm

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

Crystallisation of NP structure from PGm to PdWG

• Emergence of phrasal structure

• Gradual integration of erstwhile free modifiers in the NP

• Follows a motivated path:

– Higher scope modifiers resist incorporation longer (adjectives > determiners > peripheral modifiers)

– Marked modifiers resist incorporation longer than prototypical modifiers (adjectives > participles, quantifiers ...)

Period Structure New slot example

PIE N Noun sheep

PGm [NP A [ N ] ] Slot for adjectives black sheep

OE [NP D [ A [ N ] ] ] Slot for determiners the black sheep

MdE [NP M [ D [ A [ N ] ] ] ] Slot for peripheral modifiers only the black sheep

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

Crystallisation of NP structure from PGm to PdWG

• Slot for attributive modifiers: [NP A N] – Rise of specialised PoS:

"The development of the adjective is perhaps one of the most conspicuous innovations in Germanic morphology. In Germanic the adjective is not only semantically deliminated by generally expressing some 'quality' (. . .), but it is also morphologically clearly definable." (Bammesberger 1992: 52-53)

– Rise of contiguity: "'floating' adjectives become increasingly obsolete in Old Germanic languages (Van de Velde et al., forthc.)

– Rise of consistent prefield position: (non-relator, ‘bare’) postposition is diachronically decreasing in all Germanic languages

• Used increasingly: [NP A A ... N] – Increase in the occurrence of stacked adjectives (González-Díaz 2007

for English)

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

Discontinuous NPs in Old Germanic

• WEST GERMANIC

huand it an fastaro nis erthu gitimbrid

for it on steady not.is ground built

‘for it is not built on steady ground’ (Old Saxon, Van der Horst 2008:305)

• EAST GERMANIC

dauns sijum woþi

odor we.are sweet

‘we are a sweet savour’ (Gothic, Behaghel 1932:241)

• NORTH GERMANIC

góðan eigum vér konung

good have we king

‘we have a good king’ (Old Norse, Faarlund 1994:56)

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Old

est

Ru

nes

Eld

er F

uth

ark

Old

Sax

on

Old

Hig

h G

erm

an

Old

En

glis

h

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Old

est

Ru

nes

Go

thic

Eld

er F

uth

ark

Old

Sax

on

Old

Hig

h G

erm

an

Old

En

glis

h

adje

ctiv

es

dem

on

stra

tives

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Old

est

Ru

nes

Go

thic

Old

Sax

on

Old

Hig

h G

erm

an

Old

En

glis

h

possessiv

es

Old Germanic languages (Based on Smith 1971, see also Van de Velde 2009a)

Increasing prefield position

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

Crystallisation of NP structure from PGm to PdWG

• Slot for attributive determiners: [NP D A N]

– No article in PGm (Lehmann 1994:28)

– By implication, no determiner slot (Himmelmann 1997: 133; Lyons 1999: 323)

– Article emerges at the end of OE (around 1000)

• Extension of the determiner: [NP DArt-Dem, Poss ... A N]

– English: Spamer (1979); Roberts & Roussou (2003:ch.4); Denison (2006); Van de Velde (2009c), Sommerer (2011)

– German: Plank (1992)

– Dutch: Van de Velde (2010a, 2011b)

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

Crystallisation of NP structure from PGm to PdWG

• Extension of the determiner: [NP DArt, Dem, Poss ... A N] (Van de Velde 2009c)

– One piece of evidence: applying criterion of mutual exclusivity (Dryer 2007: 161)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

15

00

-15

69

15

70

-16

39

16

40

-17

10

17

10

-17

80

17

80

-18

50

18

50

-19

20

D+Poss (this my book) / M words in English

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

Crystallisation of NP structure from PGm to PdWG

• Slot for peripheral modifiers: [NP M D A N] – Rise of peripheral modifiers (Van de Velde 2010b, 2011a)

• Starts out with focus particles (even the staff), deriving from predicate adverbs

initial stage Þe barons portiond þe lond euen þam bituene ‘The barons divided the land equally between them.’

1330 (OED)

bridge context These sweet thoughts, doe euen refresh my labours 1610 (OED)

switch context and concluded the horrid sport by kicking and mangling the heads, cutting of the lips, cheeks, ears, and noses; they even took out the jaw-bones, which they smokedried, together with the right hands, to carry home, as trophies of their victory

1796 (OED)

form follows function The tone of insolent superiority assumed by even the gutter urchins.

1863 (OED)

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

Crystallisation of NP structure from PGm to PdWG

• Extension of the peripheral modifiers: [NP MFocP, SAdv ... D A N] – Increase in use: PP-internal M (‘with only the women’) in English

– Increase in complexity of M (Van de Velde 2011a)

1

3,3

13,3

19,8

0

5

10

15

20

25

1640-1710 1710-1780 1780-1850 1850-1920

Freq

. / M

illio

n w

ord

s

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

Conclusions

• Emergence of phrasal structure – The change is NOT: 'rigidification of word order', as it is sometimes

portrayed – The change is: emergence of NP structure as such, followed by gradual

expansion – This gives a unified explanation for

i. morphological changes (emergence of adjectival morphology) ii. successive steps in rigidification of word order (higher layers later) iii. lack of stacked modification in NP in former language stages iv. increasing use of complex NP modification (Leung & Van der Wurff

2009; Biber & Clark 2002) v. increasing reliance on NPs: Admoni (1967); Ebert (1978:49-50)

– and does justice to the idea that phrase structure is not universal

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

Conclusions

• What drives the expansion of NP structure?

– Routinisation of frequent discourse patterns (Hawkins 2001; Bybee 2010; Sommerer 2011)

– System-internal drift due to self-organisation (Gil 2009). Note that the expansion of NP structure may not be restricted to (West) Germanic (see Heine & Kuteva 2007: 84-86, 279-287).

– Cultural changes (Perkins 1992; Lupyan & Dale 2010), including influence of written language (see Maas 2009 on German, Biber & Gray 2011 on the influence of writter registers, and Givón 2002:76 on the correlation between non-configurationality and spoken language)

"[W]ritten language tends to have an 'integrated' quality which contrasts with the fragmented quality of spoken language." (Chafe 1982:38)

– Demographic changes: L2

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

Conclusions

• Demographic changes – Germanic is characterised by:

• morphological simplification (Braunmüller 2008)

• Great number of non-inherited vocabulary (Prokosch 1939)

• Contact with other languages (Hawkins 1990, Roberge 2010 for an overview)

• L2 acquisition continues to play a role in Early Modern period (Howell 2006, Lamiroy & Van de Velde 2010)

• Not clear to what extent exactly this factor is decisive.

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

References

Atkinson, Q., G. Nicholls, D. Welch & R. Gray. 2005. From words to dates: water into wine, mathemagic or phylogenetic inference?’ Transactions of the Philological Society 103(2): 193-219.

Bammesberger, A. 1992. The place of English in Germanic and Indo-European. In: R.M. Hogg (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language. Volume I: The beginnings to 1066. Cambridge: CUP. 26-66.

Behaghel, Otto. 1932. Deutsche Syntax. Eine geschichtliche Darstellung. Band IV. Worstellung. Periodenbau. Heidelberg: Winter. Bentz, C. & B. Winter. 2013. Languages with more second language learners tend to lose nominal case. Language Dynamics and

Change 3: 1-27. Beuls, K. & L. Steels. 2013. Agent-Based Models of Strategies for the Emergence and Evolution of Grammatical Agreement. PLoS

ONE 8(3), e58960. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0058960. Biber, D. & V. Clark. 2002. Historical shifts in modification patterns with complex noun phrase structures. How long can you go

without a verb? In: T. Fanego, J. Pérez-Guerra & M. José López-Couso (eds.), English historical syntax and morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 43-66.

Bickel, B. 2010. Grammatical relations typology. In: J.J. Song (ed.), The Oxford handbook of language typology. Oxford: OUP. 399-444.

Blake, B. 1983. Structure and word order in Kalkatungu: the anatomy of a flat language. Australian Journal of Linguistics 3:143-175.

Braunmüller, K. 2008. Observations on the origins of definiteness in ancient Germanic. Sprachwissenschaft 33: 351-371. Bybee, J. 2010. Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge: CUP. Börjars, K., P. Harries & N. Vincent. Sumbitted. Growing syntax: the development of a DP in Northern Germanic. Brugmann, K & B. Delbrück. 1889. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der Indogermanischen Sprachen. Zweiter Band:

Wortbildungslehre (Stammbildungs- und Flexionslehre). Straßburg: Karl J. Trübner. Brugmann, K. & B. Delbrück. 1893. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der Indogermanischen Sprachen. Dritter Band:

Vergleichende Syntax der Indogermanischen Sprachen von B. Delbrück. Straßburg: Karl J. Trübner. Bybee, J. & J. Scheibman. 1999. The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: the reduction of don't in English

Linguistics. 37:575-596. Capell, A. 1965. A typology of concept domination. Lingua 15: 451-462. Carnie, A. 2002. Syntax. A generative introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Chafe, W. 1982. Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. In: D. Tannen (ed.), Spoken and written

language: exploring orality and literacy. Norwood: Ablex. Croft, W. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: OUP. Croft, W. 2009. A typological asymmetry in noun phrase structure. Paper presented at the First Vigo-Newcastle-Santiago-Leuven

International Workshop on the Structure of the Noun Phrase in English: Synchronic and Diachronic Explorations (NP1). Vigo, 2-3/10/2009.

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

Croft, W. Manuscript. Social evolution and language change. Dahl, Ö. 2004. The growth and maintenance of Linguistic Complexity. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Denison, D. 2006. ‘Category change and gradience in the determiner system’. In: A. Van Kemenade & B. Los (eds.), The handbook of

the history of English. Oxford: Blackwell, 279-304. Deutscher, G. 2000. Syntactic change in Akkadian. The evolution of sentential complementation. Oxford: OUP. Deutscher, G. 2005. The unfolding of language. An evolutionary tour of mankind's greatest invention. New York: Henry Holt. Dryer, M. 1997. Are Grammatical Relations Universal? In: J. Bybee, J. Haiman & S. Thompson (eds.), Essays on language function and

language type: dedicated to T. Givon. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 115-143. Dryer, M. 2007. Noun phrase structure. In: T. Shopen (ed.). Language typology and syntactic description. 2nd edn. Volume II:

Complex constructions. Cambridge: CUP, 151-205. Ebert, R.P. 1978. Historische Syntax des Deutschen. Stuttgart: Metzler. Ehret, K. & B. Szmrecsanyi. Submitted. An information-theoretic approach to assess linguistic complexity. Submitted to: R. Baechler

& G. Seiler (eds.), Complexity and Isolation. Berlin: de Gruyter. Evans, N. & S. Levinson. 2009. The myth of language universals: language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavior

and Brain Sciences 32:429-492. Faarlund, Jan Terje. 1994. ‘Old and Middle Scandinavian’. In: Ekkehard König & Johan van der Auwera (eds.), The Germanic

languages. London: Routledge, 38-71. Faarlund, Jan Terje. 2001. ‘From ancient Germanic to modern Germanic languages’. In: Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf

Österreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals. Vol 2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1706-1719.

Gil, D. 2009. How much grammar does it take to sail a boat? In: G. Sampson, D. Gill & P. Trudgill (eds.), Language complexity as an evolving variable. Oxford: OUP. 19-33.

González-Díaz, V. 2007. English NPs: variation and change in the premodifying string. Paper presented at Iclave 4, Nicosia (Cyprus) 17-19 June 2007.

Haspelmath, M. 2007. Pre-established categories don't exist: consequences for language description and typology. Linguistic Typology 11:119-132.

Hawkins, J.A. 1990. Germanic Languages. In: B. Comrie (ed.), The Major Languages of Western Europe. London: Routledge, 58-66. Hawkins, J.A. 2001. Why are categories adjacent? Journal of Linguistics 37:1-34. Heine, B. & T. Kuteva. 2007. The genesis of grammar. A reconstruction. Oxford: OUP. Hengeveld, K. 1989. Layers and operators in Functional Grammar. Journal of linguistics 25: 127-157. Hengeveld, K. 1992. Parts of speech. In: M. Fortescue, P. Harder & L. Kristoffersen (eds.), Layered structure and reference in a

functional perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 29-55. Himmelmann, N.P. 1997 Deiktikon, Artikel, Nominalphrase. Zur Emergenz syntaktischer Struktur. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Hirt, H. 1927. Indogermanische Grammatik, Teil III: Das Nomen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Hirt, H. 1934. Indogermanische Grammatik, Teil VI: Syntax I. Syntaktische Verwendung der Kasus und der Verbalformen. Heidelberg:

Carl Winter.

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

Hirt, H. 1937. Indogermanische Grammatik, Teil VII: Syntax II. Die Lehre vom einfachen und zusammengesetzten Satz. Heidelberg:

Carl Winter. Hopper, P.J. & E.C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. Howell, R.B. 2006. Immigration and koineisation: the formation of early Modern Dutch urban vernaculars. Transactions of the

Philological Society 104(2): 207-227. Keizer, E. 2011. English proforms: an alternative account. English Language and Linguistics 15(2): 303-334. Keizer, E. 2012. English proforms in Functional Discourse Grammar. Language Sciences 34(4): 400-420. Koster, J. 1978. Locality principles in syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. Krause, W. 1968. Handbuch des Gotischen. 3rd edn. München: Beck. Krüger, K. & G. Cooper. 2001 [1998]. Attic Greek prose syntax. Ann Arbor: The University of Michichan Press. Kühner, R. & B. Gerth. 1963. Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, Zweiter Teil: Satzlehre: Erster Band. Müchen: Max

Hueber. Kurzová, H. 1993. From Indo-European to Latin. The evolution of a morphosyntactic type. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Kusters, W. 2008. Complexity in linguistic theory, language learning and language change. In: M. Miestamo, K. Sinnemäki & F.

Karlsson (eds.), Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 3-21. Lamiroy, B. & F. Van de Velde. 2010. ‘Language-specific differences in the speed of grammaticalization’. Paper presented at the

International conference on grammaticalization and (inter)subjectification (Gramis). Brussels, 11-13 November 2010. Langacker, R.W. 1997. Constituency, dependency, and conceptual grouping. Cognitive Linguistics 8:1-32. Ledgeway, A. 2011. Syntactic and morphosyntactic typology and change. In: A. Ledgeway, M. Maiden & J.C. Smith (eds), The

Cambridge history of the Romance languages. Cambridge: CUP. 382-471. Ledgeway, Adam. 2012. From Latin to Romance: morphosyntactic typology and change. Oxford: OUP. Lehmann, W. 1974. Proto-Indo-European syntax. Austin: University of Texas Press. Lehmann, W. 1995 [1993]. Theoretical bases of Indo-European linguistics. London: Routledge. Leung, A. & W. Van der Wurff. 2009. The rise of an NP premodifier in early 20th-century English.

(http://webs.uvigo.es/np1/doc/Leung_Wurff.pdf) Lupyan, G. & R. Dale. 2010. Language structure is partly determined by social structure. PLoS ONE 5(1). Luraghi, S. 1990. Old Hittite sentence structure. London: Routledge. Luraghi, S. 2010. The rise (and possible downfall) of configurationality. In: S. Luraghi & V. Bubenik (ed.), A companion to historical

linguistics. London: Continuum. 212-229. Lyons, C. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: CUP. Maas, U. 2009. Orality versus literacy as a dimension of complexity. In: G. Sampson, D. Gill & P. Trudgill (eds.), Language complexity

as an evolving variable. Oxford: OUP. 164-177. Malchukov, A. 2000) Dependency Reversal in noun-attributive constructions: towards a typology. München: LINCOM. Matthews, P.H. 1981. Syntax. Cambridge: CUP. Matthews, P. 2007. Syntactic relations: a critical survey. Cambridge: CUP.

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

McCawley, J. 1988. The syntactic phenomena of English. 2 vols. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Meillet, A. 1934. Introduction à l'étude comparative des langues indo-européennes. 7nd ed. Paris: Librairie Hachette. Meillet, A. & J. Vendryes. 1924. Traité de grammaire comparée des langues classiques. Paris: Librairie Ancienne Édouard

Champion. Narrog, H. & B. Heine (eds). 2011. The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford: OUP. Pagel, M., Q.D. Atkinson, S., A.S. Calude & A. Meade. 2013. Ultraconserved words point to deep language ancestry across

Eurasia. PNAS. Perkins, R. 1992. Deixis, grammar and culture. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Perridon, H. & P. Sleeman. 2011.. The noun phrase in Germanic and Romance. Common developments and differences. In: P.

Sleeman & H. Perridon (eds.), The noun phrase in Romance and Germanic. Structure, variation, and change. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1-21.

Plank, F. 1992. Possessives and the distinction between determiners and modifiers (with special reference to German). Journal of Linguistics 28: 453-468.

Plank, F. 2003. Double articulation. In: F. Plank (ed.), Noun phrase structure in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 337-395.

Prokosch, E. 1939. A comparative Germanic grammar. Philadelphia: Linguistic Society of America. Rijkhoff, J. 1998. Order in the noun phrase of the languages of Europe. In A. Siewierska (ed.), Constituent order in the

languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 321-382. Rijkhoff, J. 2002. The noun phrase. Oxford: OUP. Roberge, P. 2010. Contact and the History of Germanic Languages. In: R. Hickey, (ed.), The Handbook of Language Contact.

Oxford: Blackwell, 406-431. Roberts, I. & A. Roussou. 2003. Syntactic change. A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. Robinson, J. 1970. Dependency structures and transformational rules. Language 46: 259-285. Sampson, G., D. Gill & P. Trudgill (eds.). 2009. Language complexity as an evolving variable. Oxford: OUP. Schachter, P. 1985. Parts-of-speech systems. In: T. Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol 1.

Cambridge: CUP. 3-61. Schuchardt, H.: L. Spitzer (ed.). 1976 [1928]. Hugo Schuchardt-Brevier: Ein Vademecum der allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft.

2nd ed. Halle: Max Niemeyer. Smith, J. (1971). Word order in the older Germanic languages. Doct. Diss. University of Illinois. Sommerer, L. 2011. Old English se: from demonstrative to article. A usage-based study of nominal determination and category

emergence. PhD thesis, University of Vienna. Spamer, J.B. 1979. The development of the definite article in English: a case study of syntactic change. Glossa 13: 241-250. Stassen, L. 1997. Intransitive predication. Oxford: Clarendon. Sturm, A. 1986. Primaire syntactische structuren in het Nederlands. Leiden: Nijhoff.

Inte

rnati

on

al

Su

mm

er

Sch

oo

l o

n A

gen

t-b

ase

d M

od

els

of

Cre

ati

vity

Co

rto

na,

16-2

0 S

ep

tem

ber

2013

Szmrecsanyi, B. 2012. Analyticity and syntheticity in the history of English. In: T. Nevalainen, E.C. Traugott (eds.), The Oxford

Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: OUP, 654-665. Trudgill, P. 2010. Contact and sociolinguistic typology. In: R. Hickey (ed.), The handbook of language contact. Oxford:

Blackwell. 299-319. Van der Horst, J. 2008. Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse Syntaxis. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Van de Velde, F. 2009a. De nominale constituent. Structuur en geschiedenis. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Van de Velde, F. 2009b. The emergence of modification patterns in the Dutch noun phrase. Linguistics 47:1021-1049. Van de Velde, F. 2009c. Do we need the category of postdeterminer in the NP? Transactions of the Philological Society 107:

293-321. Van de Velde, F. 2010a. The emergence of the determiner in the Dutch NP. Linguistics 48:263-299. Van de Velde, F. 2010b. Ontwikkelingen in de linkerperiferie van de nominale constituent. Nederlandse Taalkunde 15:220-

237. Van de Velde, F. 2011a. Left-peripheral expansion of the English NP. English Language and Linguistics 15: 387-415. Van de Velde, F. 2011b. Anaphoric adjectives becoming determiners. A corpus-based account. In: P. Sleeman & H. Perridon

(eds.), The noun phrase in Romance and Germanic. Structure, variation, and change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 241-256.

Van de Velde, F. 2012. PP extraction and extraposition in Functional Discourse Grammar. Language Sciences 34(4): 433-454. Van de Velde, F., P. Sleeman & H. Perridon. Forthcoming. The adjective in Germanic and Romance: development, differences

and similarities. In: Sleeman P., Van de Velde F., Perridon H. (Eds.), Adjectives in Germanic and Romance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Van Valin, R. 2001. An introduction to syntax. Cambridge: CUP. Verhaar, J. 1998. Extraposable prepositional attributes in Dutch. Dutch Crossing 22: 101-141. Verhagen, A. 1992. Patroonsplitsing en zinsstructuur. In: H. Bennis & J. de Vries (eds.), De binnenbouw van het Nederlands.

Dordrecht: ICG Publications. 373-382. Verhagen, A. 1996. Sequential conceptualization and linear order. In: E. Casad (ed.), Cognitive linguistics in the redwoords: the

expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 793-817. Von Wartburg, W. 1962. Évolution et structure de la langue française. 6nd edn. Bern: Francke. Zwicky, A. 1978. Arguing for constituents. Chicago Linguistic Society 14:503-512.