Against mechanisms : Towards a minimal theory of change

Walkden, George

Against mechanisms : Towards a minimal theory of change

Dateien

Walkden_2-d8cjhjj1cqp99.pdfGröße: 370.21 KBDownloads: 78

Datum

2021

Open Access-Veröffentlichung

Open Access Gold

Sammlungen

Linguistik

Publikationstyp

Zeitschriftenartikel

Publikationsstatus

Published

Erschienen in

Journal of Historical Syntax. University of Konstanz. 2021, 5(32-39), 33. eISSN 2163-6001. Available under: doi: 10.18148/hs/2021.v5i32-39.141

Zusammenfassung

A widespread view in the literature on language change is that there exist a finite number of mechanisms of change to which attested instances of change can be assigned. In this paper I argue against reifying ‘mechanisms’ as primitives of the theory of language change, on multiple grounds. The mechanisms in question, such as reanalysis and analogy, are commonly invoked in multiply ambiguous ways: cause, process, event, result, and more. This is related to the fact that the ontological status of mechanisms is extremely suspect: where do they reside, and/or what are they properties of? I defend the position that a theory of change should be entirely derivative of i) a theory of language in the individual (cognition, acquisition, and use) and ii) a theory of (human) populations, with at least the latter containing no principles or stipulations specific to language. From this it follows that mechanisms, insofar as they have a role in our diachronic narratives, are epiphenomenal. If so, debates around the status of notions such as reanalysis and grammaticalization may both turn out to hinge on less contentful issues than previously thought.

Fachgebiet (DDC)

400 Sprachwissenschaft, Linguistik

Zitieren

ISO 690

WALKDEN, George, 2021. Against mechanisms : Towards a minimal theory of change. In: Journal of Historical Syntax. University of Konstanz. 2021, 5(32-39), 33. eISSN 2163-6001. Available under: doi: 10.18148/hs/2021.v5i32-39.141

BibTex

@article{Walkden2021Again-55703,
  year={2021},
  doi={10.18148/hs/2021.v5i32-39.141},
  title={Against mechanisms : Towards a minimal theory of change},
  number={32-39},
  volume={5},
  journal={Journal of Historical Syntax},
  author={Walkden, George},
  note={Article Number: 33}
}

RDF

<rdf:RDF
    xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/"
    xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#"
    xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
    xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#"
    xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > 
  <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/55703">
    <dcterms:hasPart rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/55703/1/Walkden_2-d8cjhjj1cqp99.pdf"/>
    <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
    <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/>
    <bibo:uri rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/55703"/>
    <dcterms:title>Against mechanisms : Towards a minimal theory of change</dcterms:title>
    <dc:contributor>Walkden, George</dc:contributor>
    <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">A widespread view in the literature on language change is that there exist a finite number of mechanisms of change to which attested instances of change can be assigned. In this paper I argue against reifying ‘mechanisms’ as primitives of the theory of language change, on multiple grounds. The mechanisms in question, such as reanalysis and analogy, are commonly invoked in multiply ambiguous ways: cause, process, event, result, and more. This is related to the fact that the ontological status of mechanisms is extremely suspect: where do they reside, and/or what are they properties of? I defend the position that a theory of change should be entirely derivative of i) a theory of language in the individual (cognition, acquisition, and use) and ii) a theory of (human) populations, with at least the latter containing no principles or stipulations specific to language. From this it follows that mechanisms, insofar as they have a role in our diachronic narratives, are epiphenomenal. If so, debates around the status of notions such as reanalysis and grammaticalization may both turn out to hinge on less contentful issues than previously thought.</dcterms:abstract>
    <dc:rights>terms-of-use</dc:rights>
    <dcterms:issued>2021</dcterms:issued>
    <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/45"/>
    <dcterms:rights rdf:resource="https://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/"/>
    <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2021-11-29T15:57:10Z</dc:date>
    <dc:creator>Walkden, George</dc:creator>
    <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2021-11-29T15:57:10Z</dcterms:available>
    <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/>
    <dspace:hasBitstream rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/55703/1/Walkden_2-d8cjhjj1cqp99.pdf"/>
    <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/45"/>
  </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

Begutachtet

Unbekannt