Abstract:

Many grammatical changes progress towards completion at a uniform rate across linguistic contexts, but with different temporal offsets in different contexts. This is the Constant Rate Effect, or CRE (Kroch, 1989). According to Kroch, the CRE reflects competition between functionally equivalent forms. If a novel form occurs with probability p, an S-shaped trajectory of change (Bailey, 1973; Blythe & Croft, 2012) arises when the ratio p/(1 − p) grows exponentially with time.



p/1-p = e^(k+st) <--> p = e^(k+st)/(1+e^(k+st)) (1)



A CRE in these terms arises when s is held constant across linguistic contexts, but k is allowed to vary. This interpretation implies a direct link from CREs to grammar competition, in which competing forms realize the same function, and situates competition most naturally in adult communicative strategies.



We present a CRE that is better analysed in complementary terms. This involves headed wh-relatives in English, constructions like "the person [[to whom]i I spoke __i]", where a clause, introduced by a wh-phrase, modifies a noun phrase.



Headed wh-relatives emerged gradually in Middle and Early Modern English, (c. 1100–1700). The earliest examples had oblique and adverbial wh-phrases; argumental relatives with which followed by c.1350, with whom- and then who- relatives emerging over the next couple of centuries. Nevertheless, the rate of change in all of these linguistic contexts is near-identical. Fig. 1 demonstrates this for relatives with wh-PPs and with NP which, using data from the Penn Parsed Corpora of Historical English (Kroch & Taylor, 2000; Kroch, Santorini, & Delfs, 2004).[Footnote omitted]



(Fig 1 omitted)



Relativizer which has been in competition with that and ∅ as strategies for relativizing on argument positions over the last c.650 years. However, there was no competing strategy for relativizing PPs when wh-PPs emerged (earlier relatives with demonstrative PP relativizers disappeared in Old English). Accordingly, the constant rate of change across wh-PP and which-relatives cannot reflect a similar competition process across the two construction types.



Instead, this change reflects competing functional specifications of wh-forms. Such competition, unlike Kroch’s, is naturally located in acquisition, because a learner identifies a form before inducing a feature specification for it (Shipley, Smith, & Gleitman, 1969). This differs from competition among communicative strategies, but still maintains Kroch’s logic of competition and selection.



References

Bailey, C.-J. (1973). Variation and linguistic theory. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Blythe, R., & Croft, W. (2012). S-curves and the mechanisms of propagation in language change. Language, 88, 269-304.

Kroch, A. (1989). Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change, 1, 199-244.

Kroch, A., Santorini, B., & Delfs, L. (2004). Penn-Helsinki parsed corpus of Early Modern English.

Kroch, A., & Taylor, A. (2000). Penn-Helsinki parsed corpus of Middle English (2nd edition).

Shipley, E., Smith, C., & Gleitman, L. (1969). A study in the acquisition of language: Free responses to commands. Language, 45, 322-342.

Download Paper (pdf)

Citation:

Truswell R. and Gisborne N. (2016). A Constant Rate Effect Without Stable Functions. In S.G. Roberts, C. Cuskley, L. McCrohon, L. Barceló-Coblijn, O. Fehér & T. Verhoef (eds.) The Evolution of Language: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference (EVOLANG11). Available online: http://evolang.org/neworleans/papers/88.html