Chapter published in:
Language Variation - European Perspectives VI: Selected papers from the Eighth International Conference on Language Variation in Europe (ICLaVE 8), Leipzig, May 2015
Edited by Isabelle Buchstaller and Beat Siebenhaar
[Studies in Language Variation 19] 2017
► pp. 3–22

Analytic and synthetic

Typological change in varieties of European languages

| MPI-SHH Jena
| Leipzig University

It has long been observed that the modern European languages use more function words compared to earlier inflectional patterns, and this trend seems to have increased even further in creoles and other non-standard varieties. Here we make two arguments: First, we note that the terms synthetic and analytic are based on the “word” concept, which is not well-defined, so that these concepts cannot be used in a synchronic typology. But we can define a notion of “analyticization”, i.e. the replacement of an earlier pattern by a new, more elaborate pattern based on lexical or concrete items. Second, we observe that such analyticizations are particularly common in creole languages (when viewed as continuations of their lexifiers), and we hypothesize that this is due to the extra transparency that is required in situations with many adult second-language speakers.

Keywords: analytic, synthetic, function word, grammaticalization, creole
Article outline
  • 1.The macro-comparative perspective: Language typology and language contact
  • 2.A short history of the analytic/synthetic terminology
  • 3.Analytic/synthetic as a synchronic notion
  • 4.Synthetic/analytic in diachrony
  • 5.Analyticizations occur very commonly in creoles
    • 5.1Definite articles (APiCS 28, 9)
    • 5.2Indefinite articles (APiCS 29, 10)
    • 5.3Plural markers (APiCS 22, 23)
    • 5.4Genitive markers (APiCS 38, 37)
    • 5.5Personal pronouns in subject or possessor function (APiCS 62)
    • 5.6Accusative markers (APiCS 57)
    • 5.7Dative markers (APiCS 60, 61)
    • 5.8Future tense markers (cf. APiCS 48)
    • 5.9Past tense (or anterior) markers (APiCS 45)
    • 5.10Imperfective aspect markers (APiCS 46, 47, 48)
    • 5.11Causative construction
  • 6.Analyticization is generally favoured by language-contact situations
  • 7.Further examples of increased analyticity in European varieties
    • 7.1Increased analyticity in Afrikaans
    • 7.2Increased analyticity in Brazilian Portuguese
    • 7.3Increased analyticity in Bulgarian
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 26 July 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/silv.19.01has
References
APiCS
: Michaelis et al. (2013)Google Scholar
Ansaldo, Umberto, Stephen Matthews and Lisa Lim
(eds.) 2007 Deconstructing Creole. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Atoyebi, Joseph Dele
2010 A Reference Grammar of Oko: A West Benue-Congo Language of North-Central Nigeria. Köln: Köppe.Google Scholar
Bakker, Peter, Aymeric Daval-Markussen, Mikael Parkvall and Ingo Plag
2011 “Creoles Are Typologically Distinct from Non-Creoles.” Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 26(1). 5–42. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Bickerton, Derek
1981 Roots of Language. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers.Google Scholar
Bruyn, Adrienne
2009 “Grammaticalization in Creoles: Ordinary and Not-So-Ordinary Cases.” Studies in Language 33(2). 312–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2006 “Language Change and Universals.” In Linguistic Universals, ed. by Ricardo Mairal and Juana Gil, 179–194. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carlier, Anne, Walter De Mulder and Béatrice Lamiroy
2012 “Introduction: The Pace of Grammaticalization in a Typological Perspective.” Folia Linguistica 46(2). 287–301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia
2012 “Cognitive Explanations, Distributional Evidence, and Diachrony.” Studies in Language 36(3). 645–670. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Epps, Patience
2008 A Grammar of Hup. (Mouton Grammar Library, 43). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Good, Jeff
2012 “Typologizing Grammatical Complexities, or: Why Creoles May Be Paradigmatically Simple but Syntagmatically Average.” Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 27(1). 1–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H.
1960 “A Quantitative Approach to the Morphological Typology of Language.” International Journal of American Linguistics 26(3). 178–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
1999 “Why is Grammaticalization Irreversible? Linguistics 37(6). 1043–1068. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000 “The Relevance of Extravagance: A Reply to Bart Geurts.” Linguistics 38(4). 789–798. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004 “On Directionality in Language Change with Particular Reference to Grammaticalization.” In Up and Down the Cline: The Nature of Grammaticalization, ed. by Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde and Harry Perridon, 17–44. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 “Comparative Concepts and Descriptive Categories in Crosslinguistic Studies.” Language 86(3). 663–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 “The Indeterminacy of Word Segmentation and the Nature of Morphology and Syntax.” Folia Linguistica 45(1). 31–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 “Revisiting the Anasynthetic Spiral.” In Grammaticalization and Language Typology, ed. by Bernd Heine and Heiko Narrog. (to appear)Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil and Bernard Comrie
2005 The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Tania Kuteva
2006 The Changing Languages of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinrichs, Uwe
2004 “Ist das Bulgarische kreolisiertes Altbulgarisch?” In Die europäischen Sprachen auf dem Wege zum analytischen Sprachtyp, ed. by Uwe Hinrichs, 231–242. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Holm, John
2004 Languages in Contact: The Partial Restructuring of Vernaculars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., and Elizabeth C. Traugott
1993 Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto
1894 Progress in Language: With Special Reference to English. Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi
2011 “Parameters of Morphosyntactic Variation in World Englishes: Prospects and Limitations of Searching for Universals.” In Linguistic Universals and Language Variation, ed. by Peter Siemund, 264–290. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lahiri, Aditi
2000 “Hierarchical Restructuring in the Creation of Verbal Morphology in Bengali and Germanic: Evidence from Phonology.” In Analogy, Levelling, Markedness: Principles of Change in Phonology and Morphology, ed. by Aditi Lahiri, 71–123. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
1985 “Grammaticalization: Synchronic Variation and Diachronic Change.” Lingua e Stile 20(3). 303–318.Google Scholar
2015[1982] Thoughts on Grammaticalization. 3rd edition. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Leufkens, Sterre
2013 “The Transparency of Creoles.” Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 28(2). 323–362. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lupyan, G. and R. Dale
2010 “Language Structure Is Partly Determined by Social Structure.” PLoS ONE 5(1). e8559. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthews, P. H.
1997 The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McWhorter, John H.
2001 “The Worlds Simplest Grammars Are Creole Grammars.” Linguistic Typology 5(2–3). 125–166.Google Scholar
2007 Language Interrupted: Signs of Non-Native Acquisition in Standard Language Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Susanne
2015 “Inflectional Complexity in Creole Languages: Evidence from the Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Language Structures.” Paper presented at the SLE conference in Leiden, September 2015.
Michaelis, Susanne, Philippe Maurer, Martin Haspelmath and Magnus Huber
(eds.) 2013 The Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (apics-inline.info)Google Scholar
Mufwene, Salikoko S.
2001 The Ecology of Language Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parkvall, Mikael
2008 “The Simplicity of Creoles in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective.” In Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change, ed. by Matti Miestamo, Kaius Sinnemäki and Fred Karlsson, 265–285. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plag, Ingo
2002 “On the Role of Grammaticalization in Creolization.” In Pidgin and Creole Linguistics in the 21st Century, ed. by Glenn Gilbert. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Reinöhl, Uta and Himmelmann, Nikolaus
2017 “ “Renewal”: A Figure of Speech or a Process Sui Generis?” Manuscript, University of Cologne.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward
1921 Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Schiering, René, Balthasar Bickel and Kristine A. Hildebrandt
2010 “The Prosodic Word Is Not Universal, but Emergent.” Journal of Linguistics 46(3). 657–709. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schlegel, August Wilhelm von
1818 Observations sur la langue et la littérature provençales. Paris: Librairie grecque-latine-allemande.Google Scholar
Schleicher, August
1860 Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Weimar: Böhlau.Google Scholar
Seuren, Pieter and Herman Wekker
1986 “Semantic Transparency as a Factor in Creole Genesis.” In Substrata Versus Universals in Creole Genesis, ed. by Pieter Muysken and Norval Smith, 57–70. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siegel, Jeff
2008 The Emergence of Pidgin and Creole Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Siegel, Jeff, Benedikt Szmrecsanyi and Bernd Kortmann
2014 “Measuring Analyticity and Syntheticity in Creoles.” Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 29(1). 49–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt
2009 “Typological Parameters of Intralingual Variability: Grammatical Analyticity Versus Syntheticity in Varieties of English.” Language Variation and Change 21(03). 319–353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 “An analytic-synthetic spiral in the history of English.” In Cyclical Change Continued, ed. by Elly van Gelderen, 93–112. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomason, Sarah Grey and Terrence Kaufman
1988 Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter
2011 Sociolinguistic Typology: Social Determinants of Linguistic Complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
WALS
: Haspelmath et al. (2005).Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 12 other publications

Blasi, Damián E., Susanne Maria Michaelis & Martin Haspelmath
2017. Grammars are robustly transmitted even during the emergence of creole languages. Nature Human Behaviour 1:10 ► pp. 723 ff. Crossref logo
Danylenko, Andrii
2020.  In Historical Linguistics 2017 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 350], ► pp. 294 ff. Crossref logo
De Smet, Isabeau, Laura Rosseel & Freek Van de Velde
2022. Are non-native speakers the drivers of morphological simplification? A Wug experiment on the Dutch past tense system. Journal of Language Evolution Crossref logo
Hausser, Roland
2021. Database Semantics. Cadernos de Linguística 2:1 ► pp. e382 ff. Crossref logo
Inglese, Guglielmo
2017. A synchronic and diachronic typology of Hittite reciprocal constructions. Studies in Language 41:4 ► pp. 956 ff. Crossref logo
Karaj, David M.
2022. Typological Change Across Registers – the Case of Malaysian. <i>WORD</i> 68:4 ► pp. 395 ff. Crossref logo
Kuzmina, A.A., M.A. Lifshits & V.Yu. Kostenko
2022. Methods of Computational Linguistics and Natural Language Processing: Opportunities and Limitations for Personality Psychology Tasks. Journal of Modern Foreign Psychology 11:1 ► pp. 104 ff. Crossref logo
Marukatat, Rangsipan
2020.  In Applied Computing and Information Technology [Studies in Computational Intelligence, 847], ► pp. 81 ff. Crossref logo
Smith, John Charles
2020.  In Dynamics of Language Changes, ► pp. 183 ff. Crossref logo
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Laura Rosseel
2020.  In The Handbook of English Linguistics, ► pp. 29 ff. Crossref logo
Tak, Jin-young
2020. Is Unish Moving toward Becoming a More Analytic Language?: With Special Reference to Morphological Changes. Journal of Universal Language 21:2 ► pp. 147 ff. Crossref logo
Tantucci, Vittorio & Matteo Di Cristofaro
2020. Entrenchment inhibition: Constructional change and repetitive behaviour can be in competition with large-scale “recompositional” creativity. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 16:3 ► pp. 547 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 01 january 2023. 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.