Article published in:
Asian Languages and Linguistics
Vol. 1:1 (2020) ► pp. 34–70

Radical analyticity and radical pro-drop scenarios of diachronic change in East and mainland Southeast Asia, West Africa and Pidgins and Creoles

| University of Mainz/Zhejiang University

The paucity or absence of inflectional morphology (radical analyticity) and the omission of verbal arguments with no concomitant agreement (radical pro-drop) are well-known characteristics of East and mainland Southeast Asian languages (EMSEA). Both of them have a special status in typology and linguistic theory. Radical analyticity is known under the term of ‘morphological isolation’ and has recently been described as ‘diachronically anomalous’ (McWhorter 2016), while radical pro-drop is a theoretical challenge since Rizzi (1986). The present paper offers an alternative view on these characteristics based on data from EMSEA languages, radically analytic West African languages and pidgins and creoles. It develops diachronic evolutionary scenarios combining the specific properties of languages in their diachronic and geographic situations with two different notions of complexity (hidden vs. overt complexity) and factors which tend to block the development of inflectional morphological paradigms. From such a perspective, radical analyticity and radical pro-drop are by no means extraordinary. Given the enormous size of the task, the paper is a thought experiment based on available data and discussions on the above languages for stimulating further research.

Keywords: diachronic linguistics, frequency, grammaticalization, linguistic contact, linguistic complexity, morphological paradigms, radical pro-drop


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 11 March 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/alal.00002.bis

Full-text

Radical analyticity and radical pro-drop scenarios of diachronic change in East and mainland Southeast Asia, West Africa and Pidgins and Creoles
References

References

Ackema, P., Brandt, P., Schoorlemmer, M. and Weerman, F.
(eds.) (2006) Arguments and Agreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Adelaar, A.
(2005) The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar: A histirical perspective. In: A. Adelaar and N. P. Himmelmann (eds.), The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Adone, D.
(1994) Creolization and language change in Mauritian Creole. In: D. Adone and I. Plag (eds.), Creolization and Language Change (pp. 24–43). Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, G. D. S.
(2007) The Munda Verb. A Typological Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) Overview of the Munda languages, In: M. Jenny and P. Sidwell (eds.), The Handbook of Austronesian Languages, Vol. 1 (pp. 364–414). Leiden and Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Ansaldo, U. and Lim, L.
(2004) Phonetic absence as syntactic prominence. Grammaticalization in isolating tonal languages. In: O. Fischer, M. Norde, and H. Perridon (eds.), Up and Down the Cline – the Nature of Grammaticalization (pp. 345–362). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arcodia, G. F.
(2013) Grammaticalization with coevolution of form and meaning in East Asia? Evidence from Sinitic. Language Sciences 40, 148–167. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) More on the morphological typology of Sinitic. Bulletin of Chinese Linguistics 8, 5–26.Google Scholar
[ p. 66 ]
Baerman, M. and Corbett, G.
(2010) Introduction: Defectiveness: Typology and diachrony. In: M. Barerman, G. Corbett and D. Brown (eds), Defective Paradigms. Missing Forms and what they Tell us (pp. 1–18). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, W. A. and Sagart, L.
(2014) Old Chinese. A New Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Benjamin, G.
(1976) An outline of Temiar grammar. In: P. N. Jenner, L. C. Thompson and S. Starosta (eds.), Austroasiatic Studies I and II (pp. 129–188).Google Scholar
Bickel, B.
(2007) Typology in the 21st century: Major current developments. Linguistic Typology 11, 239–251. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bisang, W.
(1992) Das Verb im Chinesischen, Hmong, Vietnamesischen, Thai und Khmer. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
(2004) Grammaticalization without coevolution of form and meaning: The case of tense-aspect-modality in East and mainland Southeast Asia. In: W. Bisang, N. P. Himmelmann and B. Wiemer (eds.), What Makes Grammaticalization? – A Look from its Fringes and its Components (pp. 109–138). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Grammaticalization and the areal factor: The perspective of East and mainland Southeast Asian languages. In: M. J. López-Couso and E. Seoane (eds.), Rethinking Grammaticalization. New Perspectives (pp. 15–35). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) On the evolution of complexity – sometimes less is more in East and mainland Southeast Asia. In: G. Sampson, D. Gil and P. Trudgill (eds.), Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable (pp. 34–49). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2010) Grammaticalization in Chinese – a construction based account. In: E. C. Traugott and G. Trousdale (eds), Gradience, Gradualness, and Grammaticalization (pp. 245–277). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Language contact between geographic and mental space. In: Auer, P., M. Hilpert, A. Stukenbrock and B. Szmrecsanyi, Linguistic Perspectives on Space: Geography, Interaction, and Cognition (pp. 61–100). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter (Series Linguae et Litterae). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014a) On the strength of morphological paradigms – a historical account of radical pro-drop. In: M. Robbeets and W. Bisang. (eds.), Paradigm Change in Historical Reconstruction: The Transeurasian Languages and Beyond (pp. 23–60). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2014b) Overt and hidden complexity – two types of complexity and their implications. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 50 (2), 127–143. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015a) Hidden complexity – the neglected side of complexity and its implications. Linguistics Vanguard. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015b) Problems with primary vs. secondary grammaticalization: the case of East and mainland Southeast Asian languages. Language Sciences 47, 132–147. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2020 Grammaticalization in Chinese – a cross-linguistic perspective”, in: J. Xingn (ed.), A Typological Approach to Grammaticalization and Lexicalization: East Meets West, (pp. 17-54). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 67 ]
Bisang, W. and Sonaiya, R.
(1999) The function of the High Tone Syllable in Yoruba. The Journal of African Languages and Linguistics (JALL) 20, 1–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boyeldieu, P.
(1975) Études Yakoma, langue du groupe Oubangien (R. C. A.) Morphologie-synthématique. Notes linguistiques. Paris, Éditions SELAF.Google Scholar
Burling, R.
(1965) Hill Farms and Padi Fields: Life in Mainland Southeast Asia. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Inc.Google Scholar
Cook, W.
(1965) A Descriptive Grammar of Mundari. PhD dissertation, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Creissels, D.
(2005) A typology of subject marker and object marker systems in African languages. In: E. F. K. Voeltz (ed.), Studies in African Linguistic Typology (pp. 445–459). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dahl, Ö.
(2004) The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Déchaine, R.-M.
(1993) Predicates across categories: towards a category-neutral syntax. Amherst, Mass. GLSA. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts).Google Scholar
DeGraff, M. F.
(1993) Is Haitian a Pro-Drop language? In: F. Byrne and J. Holm (eds.), Atlantic Meets Pacific: A Global View of Pidginization and Creolization (pp. 71–90). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Déprez, V.
(1994) Haitian Creole: A Pro-Drop language? Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 9, 1–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Devos, M.
(2008) A Grammar of Makwe. München: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Diffloth, G.
(2005) The contribution of linguistic paleontology to the homeland of Austroasiatic. In: L. Sagart, R. Blench and A. Sanchez-Mazas (eds.), The Peopling of East Asia: Putting Together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics (pp. 77–80). London: RoutledgeCurzon. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Donegan, P. and Stampe, D.
(2004) Rhythm and the synthetic drift of Munda. In: R. Singh (ed.), The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 2004 (pp. 3–36). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Downer, G. B.
(1959) Derivation by tone-change in classical Chinese. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 22, 258–290. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Edmondson, J. and Solnit, D.
(1988) Introduction. In: J. Edmondson and D. Solnit (eds.), Comparative Kadai: Linguistic Studies beyond Tai (pp. 1–26). Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J.
(2003) Linguistic Epidemiology. Semantics and Grammar of Language Contact in Mainland Southeast Asia. London: RoutledgeCurzon.Google Scholar
Gabelentz, Georg von der
(1891) Die Sprachwissenschaft, ihre Aufgaben, Methoden und bisherigen Ergebnisse. Leipzig: T.O. Weigel Nachfolger.Google Scholar
Gerner, M. and Bisang, W.
(2008) Inflectional speaker-role classifiers in Weining Ahmao. Journal of Pragmatics 40, 719–731. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Inflectional classifiers in Weining Ahmao: Mirror of the history of a people. Folia Linguistica Historica 30, 183–218.Google Scholar
Güldemann, T.
(2007) Bantu in its macro-areal context of Africa and implications for the early typology of Bantu and Niger-Congo. Paper read at the International Conference on Bantu Languages, Gothenburg: Oct 4–6, 2007.
[ p. 68 ]
(2010) Proto-Bantu and Proto-Niger-Congo: Macro-areal typology and linguistic reconstruction. In: C. König and O. Hieda (eds), International Symposium of the Center of Corpus-Based Linguistics and Language Education (CbLLE). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Haiman, J.
(1983) Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59: 781–819. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J.
(1984) On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15, 531–574.Google Scholar
Huang, Y.
(1994) The Syntax and Pragmatics of Anaphora. A Study with Special Reference to Anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, L. M.
(2004) How to become a Kwa verb. Journal of West African Languages 30, 69–88.Google Scholar
(2010) The Macro-Sudan Belt and Niger-Congo reconstruction. September 04 2011: linguistics​.berkeley​.edu​/~hyman​/Hyman​_Niger​_Congo​_Dynamics​.pdf
Jaeggli, O. and Safir, K.
(1989) The null subject parameter in language acquisition. In: O. Jaeggli and K. Safir (eds.), The Null Subject Parameter (pp. 215–238). Dordrecht: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jenner, Philipp N. and Pou, Saveros
(1982) A Lexicon of Khmer Morphology. [Mon-Khmer Studies IX-X]. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Kager, R.
(1999) Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kibrik, A. A.
(2011) Reference in Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kruspe, N.
(2004) A Grammar of Semelai. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kusters, W.
(2003) Linguistic Complexity: The Influence of Social Change on Verbal Inflection. Utrecht: Landelijke Onderzoekschool Taalwetenschap (Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics).Google Scholar
Lefebvre, C. and Brousseau, A.-M.
(2002) A Grammar of Fongbe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C.
(2000) Presumptive Meanings. The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicatures, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Li, F.-K.
(1977) A Handbook of Comparative Tai. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Li, W.
(2014) Perfectivity and grounding in Chinese. Studies in Language 38.1, 127–168. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Li, X. and Bisang, W.
2012 Classifiers in Sinitic languages: From individuation to definiteness-marking. Lingua 122, 335–355. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Luo, Y.
(1997) The Subgroup Structure of the Tai Languages: A Historical-Comparative Study. Berkeley: University of California. [Journal of Chinese Linguistics Monograph Series 12].Google Scholar
Masica, C. P.
(1990) The Indo-Aryan Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Matson, D.
(1964) A Grammatical Sketch of Juang. PhD dissertation, University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
McConvell, P.
(2008) Mixed languages as outcomes of code-switching: Recent examples from Australia and their implications. Journal of Language Contact 2, 187–212. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McWhorter, J. H.
(2001) The world’s simplest grammars are creole grammars. Linguistic Typology 5, 125–166. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 69 ]
(2005) Defining Creole. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2016) Is radical analyticity normal? Implications of Niger-Congo and Southeast Asia for typology and diachronic theory. In: Van Gelderen, Elly (ed.), Cyclical Change Continued (pp. 49–91). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, S. M., Maurer, P., Haspelmath, M. and Huber, M.
(eds.) (2013) Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at http://​apics​-online​.info, Accessed on 2016-11-05.)
Nagaraja, K. S.
(2016) Standard Khasi. In: M. Jenny and P. Sidwell (eds.), The Handbook of Austronesian Languages, Vol. 2 (pp. 1145–1185). Leiden and Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Neeleman, A. and Szendro_i, K.
(2007) Radical pro drop and the morphology of pronouns. Linguistic Iquiry 38, 671–714. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pinnow, H.-J.
(1960) Über den Ursprung der voneinander abweichenden Strukturen der Munda- und Khmer-Nikobar Sprachen. Indo-Iranian Journal, 4.1.Google Scholar
Ratliff, M.
(2010) Hmong-Mien Language History. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L.
(1986) Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 501–557.Google Scholar
Ross, M.
(2002) The history and transitivity of western Austronesian voice and voice-marking. In: F. Wouk and M. Ross (eds.), The History and Typology of Western Austronesian Voice Systems (pp. 17–62). Canberra: The Australian National University.Google Scholar
Sagart, L.
(1999) The Roots of Old Chinese. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scott, J.
(2009) The Art of Not Being Governed. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Sidwell, P.
(2008) Issues in the morphological reconstruction of Proto-Mon-Khmer. In: Morphology and Language History. In Honour of Harold Koch (pp. 251–265). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Classifying the Austroasiatic Languages: History and State of the Art. München: LINCOM EUROPA.Google Scholar
(2016) Austroasiatic classification. In: M. Jenny and P. Sidwell (eds.), The Handbook of Austronesian Languages, Vol. 1 (pp. 144–220). Leiden and Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Sidwell, P. and Blench, R.
(2011) The Austroasiatic Urheimat: the Southeastern Riverine Hypothesis. In: N. Enfield (ed.), Dynamics of Human Diversity. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics (pp. 315–344).Google Scholar
Sinnemäki, K.
(2011) Language universals and linguistic complexity. PhD dissertation at the University of Helsinki, Department of Modern Languages.Google Scholar
Song, J. J.
(1997) On the development of MANNER from GIVE. In: J. Newman (ed.), The Linguistics of Giving (pp. 327–348). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins.Google Scholar
Speas, M.
(1994) Null arguments in a theory of economy of projections. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 17, 179–208.Google Scholar
Syea, A.
(1993) Null subject in Mauritian Creole and the Pro-Drop Parameter. In: Byrne, Francis and Holm, John. (eds.), Atlantic Meets Pacific (pp. 91–102). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Thepkanjana, K. and Uehara, S.
(2008) The verb of giving in Thai and Mandarin Chinese as a case of polysemy: A comparative study. Language Science 30, 621–651. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, P.
(2011) Sociolinguistic Typology: Social Determinants of Linguistic Structure and Complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
[ p. 70 ]
Tuc, H.-D.
(2003) Vietnamese-English Bilingualism. Patterns of Code-Switching. London and New York: Routledge Curzon.Google Scholar
Van Driem, G.
(2001) Languages of the Himalayas. Vol. 1. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Wang, Fushi (王辅世)
(1957) 贵州威宁苗语量词 Guizhou Weining Miaoyu liangci [The classifier in the Weining dialect of the Miao language in Guizhou]. Yuyan Yanjiu 1957: 75–121.Google Scholar
Xing, J. Z.
(2013) Semantic reanalysis in grammaticalization in Chinese. In: Zh. Jing-Schmidt (ed.), Increased Empiricism: New Advances in Chinese Linguistics (pp. 223–246). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) A comparative study of semantic change in grammaticalization and lexicalization in Chinese and Germanic languages. Studies in Language 39.3, 594–634. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Xu, D.
(2006) Typological Change in Chinese Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zide, N. H. and Anderson, G. D. S.
(2001) The Proto-Munda verb system and some connections with Mon-Khmer. In: B. Rao and K. V. Subbarao (eds.), Yearbook of South Asian Linguistics (pp. 517–540). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar