Antifunctionality in language change

Abstract

The main thesis of the article is that language change is only partially subject to criteria of functionality and that, as a rule, opposing forces are also at work which often correlate directly with psychological and sociopsychological parameters reflecting themselves in all areas of linguistic competence. We sketch a complex interplay of horizontal versus vertical, deliberate versus nondeliberate, functional versus antifunctional linguistic changes, which, through a variety of processes have an effect upon the languages concerned, whether in the lexicon, the grammar, the phonology or the phonetics. Despite the overall unclarity regarding the notion of functionality in language, there are clear cases of both functionality and antifunctionality. Antifunctionality is deliberately striven for by groups of speakers who wish to distinguish themselves from other groups, for whatever reason. Antifunctionality, however, also occurs as a, probably unwanted, result of syntactic change in the acquisition process by young or adult language learners. The example is discussed of V-clustering through Predicate Raising in German and Dutch, a process that started during the early Middle Ages and was highly functional as long as it occurred on a limited scale but became antifunctional as it pervaded the entire complementation system of these languages

Antifunctionality in Shawi split ergativity, a processing analysis

“…In this article we assume that the primary function of language is the establishment of socially binding commitments or appeals with regard to given propositions, whereby facilitation of language acquisition is a further functional factor, rather than the marking of group loyalties or of differences in social prestige (Seuren 2009;Seuren and Hamans 2010). Therefore, a linguistic feature like the NH seems a useful functional constraint to comply with those goals, i.e.…”

“…Section 4 provides a Bayesian mixed-effects regression analysis of the data. Finally, Section 5 summarises the results and provides a preliminary explanation for the origins of this pattern, resorting to our current knowledge of Kawapanan morphosyntax, historical syntax of ergative languages (Gildea 2004;Gildea and Queixalós 2010), and the notion of antifunctionality in language change (Seuren and Hamans 2010).…”

Introduction: Using Multilingual Written Internet Data in Code-Switching and Language Contact Research

“…Of course, there is enough evidence that also in oral speech speakers can manipulate language consciously, often with the objective of creating linguistic features that sets the speaker off from other speakers or groups of speakers, or, conversely, to accommodate towards others and express group belonging (see e.g. Thomason, 2007;Seuren and Hamans, 2010). But this type of awareness is of a different kind than one's awareness while writing: in writing, there is continuous monitoring, if only because the process of pressing keys on the keyboard is less automated than the use of the vocal tract to produce speech sounds.…”