Abstract
The question how language change should be explained has been intensely debated in linguistic research, and causal and intentional – or in Coseriu’s terms, final – approaches have been proposed as the two basic options that are possible here (cf. Coseriu 1958). I will therefore start by critically reviewing the legitimacy and potential of conceiving language change in causal terms. In a next step I will turn to intentional explanations, which have been proposed as the second fundamental type of approach, and then investigate whether the controversy about causal vs. intentional explanations of language change can be resolved by assuming different mechanisms and types of explanation for the stages of innovation and propagation respectively, as proposed by Keller and Croft. In these reflections key assumptions of Cognitive Linguistics, more specifically of usage-based approaches to language and language change (Barlow/Kemmer 2000), will serve as a constant guideline, as they provide helpful criteria to judge the adequacy of explanations that have been previously proposed. Finally I will discuss the perspectives offered by usage-based approaches for explaining language change by outlining fundamental motors of change as well as their interplay in cognition and communication.
Highlights
The issue of explaining language change is one of the key issues in historical linguistics and beyond, and there has been a longstanding debate about the question how language change should be explained, i.e. what should count as a valid explanation of change
Two key questions arise here: 1) Can and should language change be explained by causal factors? Is this methodologically possible, and is a causal approach adequate in principle? And, especially if the answers to these questions are negative, 2) can intentional accounts be considered to be true explanations of change, and may they represent a more adequate approach to the study of language change instead? I will critically discuss both types of accounts and, in a step, turn to two recent approaches which have proposed to combine different explanatory mechanisms within a comprehensive framework (Keller 1994 and Croft 2000)
I will conclude by reflecting upon the potential offered by approaches which are consistently oriented towards the level of the individual speakers and their linguistic activity in order to explain processes of language change
Summary
The issue of explaining language change is one of the key issues in historical linguistics and beyond, and there has been a longstanding debate about the question how language change should be explained, i.e. what should count as a valid explanation of change. I will critically discuss both types of accounts and, in a step, turn to two recent approaches which have proposed to combine different explanatory mechanisms within a comprehensive framework (Keller 1994 and Croft 2000). Especially if the answers to these questions are negative, 2) can intentional accounts be considered to be true explanations of change (what is frequently denied by the proponents of a causal approach), and may they represent a more adequate approach to the study of language change instead? For these approaches, the question is raised whether such a synthesis is possible and whether it provides a better understanding of language change as a complex process. I will conclude by reflecting upon the potential offered by approaches which are consistently oriented towards the level of the individual speakers and their linguistic activity in order to explain processes of language change
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: ENERGEIA. ONLINE JOURNAL FOR LINGUISTICS, LANGUAGE PHILOSOPHY AND HISTORY OF LINGUISTICS
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
