Cover not available
Part of
Lost in Change: Causes and processes in the loss of grammatical elements and constructions
Edited by Svenja Kranich and Tine Breban
[Studies in Language Companion Series 218] 2021
► pp. 19–50

A typological perspective on the loss of inflection

editor
| University of Surrey
| University of Surrey

The loss of inflectional morphology is a diachronic process which has played a major role in shaping our linguistic landscape, but has never been the target of focussed research in the same way that the origin of inflectional morphology has been. We offer here a preliminary typology of the operations involved in inflectional loss, distinguishing three change types: the loss of forms, the loss of features, and loss of both at the same time – that is, the loss of entire paradigm cells. These are illustrated with examples from a typologically, genetically and areally diverse set of languages.

Keywords: typology, inflection, analogy, morphology
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Loss of forms
    • 2.1Convergence
      • 2.1.1Phonological change
      • 2.1.2Morphological change
    • 2.2Replacement
      • 2.2.1Functionally motivated change
      • 2.2.2Formally motivated change
  • 3.Loss of features
    • 3.1Free variation
    • 3.2Lexical redistribution
    • 3.3Paradigmatic redistribution
    • 3.4Rebranding
  • 4.Loss of cells
  • 5.Grammaticalisation and the loss of inflection
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 June 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.218.01sim
References
Allen, Cynthia
2006 Case syncretism and word order change. In The Handbook of the History of English, Ans van Kemenade & Bettelou Los (eds), 201–223. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997 Middle English case loss and the ‘creolization’ hypothesis. English Language and Linguistics 1: 63–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andronov, Mixail Sеrgeevič
1993 Jazyk malajalam. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Bakker, Peter
2003 Pidgin inflectional morphology and its implications for creole morphology. In Yearbook of Morphology 2002, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 3–33. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bentz, Christian & Winter, Bodo
2013 Languages with more second language learners tend to lose nominal case. Language Dynamics and Change, 3 (1): 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, Derek
1995 Language and Human Behavior. Seattle WA: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Boeder, Winfried
1987 Einfachheit und Komplexität in der Geschichte der Kartvelsprachen. Annual of Ibero-Caucasian Linguistics XIV: 23–64.
Bybee, Joan L. & Dahl, Östen
1989 The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world. Studies in Language 13 (1): 51–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle & Muntzel, Martha
1989 The structural consequences of language death. In Investigating Obsolescence, Nancy C. Dorian (ed.), 181–196. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chirikba, Viacheslav
2008 The problem of the Caucasian Sprachbund. In From Linguistic Areas to Areal Linguistics [Studies in Language Companion Series 90], Pieter Muysken (ed.), 25–93. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Č̣inč̣arauli, A
1960 Xevsurulis taviseburebani, ṭeksṭebita da indeksit (Features of Khevsuretian, with texts and index). Tbilisi: SMa gam-ba.Google Scholar
Cox, Monica
1998 Description grammaticale du ncàm, langue Gourma du Togo et du Ghana. PhD dissertation, École Pratique des Hautes Études, Paris.
Daniels, Don
2015 A Reconstruction of Proto-Sogeram. PhD dissertation, UC Santa Barbara.
Dorian, Nancy C
1978 The fate of morphological complexity in language death: Evidence from East Sutherland Gaelic. Language 54 (3): 590–609. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1980 Language shift in community and individual: The phenomenon of the laggard semi-speaker. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 25: 85–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang
1968 Studien zur verbalen Pluralität. Vienna: Bühlau in Kommission.Google Scholar
Fischer, Susann
2010 Word-order Change as a Source of Grammaticalisation [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 157]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1979On Understanding Grammar. New York NY: Academic Press. Also published as Givón, T. 2018On Understanding Grammar. Revised Edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasselbach, Rebecca
2013 Case in Semitic: Roles, Relations, and Reconstruction. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd
2003 On degrammaticalisation. In Historical Linguistics 2001 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 237], Barry J. Blake & Kate Burridge (eds)163–180. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike & Hünnemeyer, Friederike
1991 Grammaticalisation: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Reh, Mechthild
1984 Grammaticalisation and Reanalysis in African Languages. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Hewitt, B. George
1995 Georgian: A Structural Reference Grammar [London Oriental and African Language Library 2]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hodge, Carleton
1970 The linguistic cycle. Linguistic Sciences 13: 1–7.Google Scholar
Holisky, Dee Ann & Gagua, Rusudan
1994 Tsova-Tush (Batsbi). In North East Caucasian Languages (Part 2), Rieks Smeets(ed.), 147–212. Delmar NY: Caravan Books.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth
2003 Grammaticalisation. 2nd edition. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jendraschek, Gerd
2003 When old paradigms die, new paradigms are born: On the eternal cycle of morphological change and its importance for language typology. Journal of Universal Language 4(2): 27–59. <
https://doi.org/
>. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang & Perdue, Clive
1997 The basic variety (or: Couldn't natural languages be much simpler?). Second Language Research 13 (4): 301–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kusters, Walter
2008 Complexity in linguistic theory, language learning, and language change. In Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change [Studies in Language Companion Series 94], Matti Miestamo, Kaius Sinnemäki & Fred Karlsson (eds), 4–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 Linguistic Complexity: The Influence of Social Change on Verbal Inflection. PhD Dissertation, University of Leiden.
Lass, Roger
1990 How to do things with junk: Exaptation in language evolution. Journal of linguistics 26 (1): 79–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
2015 Thoughts on Grammaticalisation [Classics in Linguistics 1], 3rd edn. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Lupyan, Gary & Dale, Rick
2010 Language structure is partly determined by social structure. PloS one 5(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lynch, John
(2000) A Grammar of Anejom̃. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Maitz, Peter & Németh, Attila
2014 Language contact and morphosyntactic complexity: Evidence from German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 26(1): 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McWhorter, John. H
1998 Identifying the creole prototype: Vindicating a typological class. Language 74 (4): 788–818. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mišeska-Tomić, Olga
2006 Balkan Sprachbund Morpho-syntactic Features. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mühlhäusler, Peter
1986 Pidgin and Creole Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Norde, Muriel
1997 The History of the Genitive in Swedish. A Case Study in Degrammaticalisation. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam
2000 Deflexion as a counterdirectional factor in grammatical change. Language Sciences 23(2–3): 231–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 The loss of lexical case in Swedish. In Grammatical Relations in Change [Studies in Language Companion Series 56], Jan Terje Faarlund (ed.), 241–272. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 The final stages of grammaticalisation: Affixhood and beyond. In New Reflections on Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 49], Ilse Wischer & Gabriela Diewald (eds), 45–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logo
2009 Degrammaticalisation. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019 Grammaticalization in morphology. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics: Morphology, Rochelle Lieber (ed.). Oxford: OUP. <oxfordre.com/linguistics/page/morphology/the-oxford-encyclopedia-of-morphology> (9 November 2020).Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria
. (1995). Cross-linguistic parallels in language loss. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 14 (1): 87–123.Google Scholar
Ramaswami Ayyar, L. Vishwanatha
1936 The Evolution of Malayalam Morphology. Cochin: Government Press.Google Scholar
van Reenen, Pieter & Schøsler, Lene
2000 Declension in Old and Middle French: Two opposing tendencies. In Historical Linguistics 1995, Vol. 1 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 161], John Charles Smith & Delia Bentley (eds), 327–344. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandfeld, Karl
1930 Linguistique balkanique: Problèmes et résultats. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Schwegler, Armin
1990 Analyticity and Syntheticity. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sethe, Kurt
1899 Das aegyptische Verbum im Altaegyptischen, Neuaegyptischen und Koptischen: Formenlehre und Syntax der Verbalformen, Vol. 2. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs.Google Scholar
Sims-Williams, Helen, & Enger, Hans-Olav
(2021) The loss of inflection as grammar complication: Evidence from Mainland Scandinavian. Diachronica 38 (1): 111–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sornicola, Rosanna
2011 Romance linguistics and historical linguistics: Reflections on synchrony and diachrony. In The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages, Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith & Adam Ledgeway (eds), 1–49. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Sumbatova, Nina
2011 Person hierarchies and the problem of person marker origin in Dargwa: Facts and diachronic problems. In Tense, Aspect, Modality and Finiteness in East Caucasian Languages, Gilles Authier & Timur Maisak, 95–130. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Sun, Hongkai & Liu, Guangkun
2009 A Grammar of Anong: Language Death under Intense Contact. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Thornton, Anna M.
2011 Overabundance (multiple forms realizing the same cell): A non-canonical phenomenon in Italian verb morphology. In Morphological Autonomy, Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith, Maria Goldbach & Marc-Olivier Hinzelin (eds), 358–81. Oxford: OUP.. DOI logo
Trudgill, Peter
2012 On the sociolinguistic typology of linguistic complexity loss. In Potentials of Language Documentation: Methods, Analyses, and Utilization, Frank Seifart, Geoffrey Haig, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, Dagmar Jung, Anna Margetts & Paul Trilsbeek (eds), 91–96. Honolulu HI: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar
Ziegelmann, Katja
2011 Die Verneinung im Estnischen: Zum Abbau des finiten Verneinungsverbs im älteren Schriftestnischen. PhD dissertation, Göttingen University.
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Allen, Cynthia L.
2023. Deflexion. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Morphology, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
García García, Luisa
2023. Lability and the rigidification of word order: evidence from Early Middle English. Linguistics 61:5 ► pp. 1233 ff. DOI logo
Grieve, Jack
2023. Situational diversity and linguistic complexity. Linguistics Vanguard 9:s1 ► pp. 73 ff. DOI logo
Zingler, Tim
2024. The grammaticalization of noun affixes: a cross-linguistic study. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 77:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.