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 (57)
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. <
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
>. 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 (4)

Cited by four other publications

Zingler, Tim
2024. The grammaticalization of noun affixes: a cross-linguistic study. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 77:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 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.