Research Group: Areal Morphology

The Areal Morphology Group focused on identifying the patterns and loci of morphological diffusion and resistance in languages. The group aimed to understand how and why certain morphological features spread across languages in contact, while others resisted diffusion, providing valuable insights into linguistic evolution and diversity.

Research Approach:

Case Studies on Morphological Evolution:

The group conducted detailed studies on the diachronic evolution and ontogenetic development of morphology under contact, examining how morphological features changed over time in various languages.

Phylogenetic and Geographical Modeling:

Researchers applied phylogenetic models that combined spatial and contact data to analyze the evolution of morphology across language families, utilizing geographical network models based on factors like travel cost.

High-Resolution Morphological Analysis:

The group developed highly detailed parameterizations of morphological features, integrating corpus-based and probabilistic approaches to achieve a more precise understanding of morphological patterns.

Key Findings:

The global distribution of morphology presented complex puzzles. While clear areal patterns, like isolating types in Southeast Asia or polysynthetic structures in North America, were evident, some morphological features resisted diffusion even in extensive language contact scenarios, such as Turkish preserving its morphology despite centuries of L2 influx.
The group’s research provided critical insights into ongoing debates about the spread of morphology in reconstructed proto-languages, particularly regarding agreement morphology in language families like Sino-Tibetan and Niger-Congo.
Their work also contributed to broader discussions on language complexity and the evolution of human language, particularly in the context of creole and mixed languages.

The Areal Morphology Group’s results across all the projects suggest that progress in both the areal diachrony and the acquisition of morphology requires a much more fine-grained parametrization of what constitutes ‘words’, ‘clitics’, ‘affixes’, ‘agreement’, ‘domains’, etc. This converges with the challenges met in corpus-based research (where traditional reliance on orthography tends to heavily skew results). A particular challenge remains the status of pronominal and agreement elements (clitics).