In:Language Structure and Environment: Social, cultural, and natural factors
Edited by Rik De Busser and Randy J. LaPolla
[Cognitive Linguistic Studies in Cultural Contexts 6] 2015
► pp. 133–148
Chapter 6. Societies of intimates and linguistic complexity
Published online: 9 June 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/clscc.6.06tru
https://doi.org/10.1075/clscc.6.06tru
The uniformitarian principle that knowledge of processes that operated in the past can be inferred by observing ongoing processes in the present is fundamental to historical linguistics. But there is an important respect in which the present is not like the past. Increasing population and mobility have led to increasing language contact and larger language communities. For ninety-seven percent of their history, human languages were spoken in neolithic and pre-neolithic societies which were societies of intimates, characterized by small size and dense social networks. A sociolinguistic-typological perspective suggests that the languages spoken in these communities may therefore have been typologically rather different from most modern languages, and that the methodology of ‘using the present to explain the past’ might therefore be less useful the further back in time we go.
References (42)
Aikhenvald, A.Y. (2003). A grammar Of Tariana, from Northwest Amazonia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Aikhenvald, A.Y., & Dixon, R.M.W. (1998). Evidentials and areal typology: A case study from Amazonia. Language Sciences, 20(3), 241–257.
Blust, R.A. (2005). Must sound change be linguistically motivated? Diachronica, 22(2), 219–269.
Carneiro, R.L. (1973). Scale analysis, evolutionary sequences, and the range of cultures. In R. Naroll & R. Cohen (Eds.), A handbook of method in cultural anthropology (pp. 834–871). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Dahl, Ö. (2004). The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dench, A. (1994). The historical development of pronoun paradigms in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 14(2), 155–191.
Dryer, M.S. (1989). Large linguistic areas and language sampling. Studies in Language, 13(2), 257–292.
Evans, V. (2009). Review of Ronald Langacker, Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008, 562 pp. Language and Cognition, 1(2), 277–283.
Givón, T., & Young, P. (2002). Cooperation and interpersonal manipulation in the society of intimates. In M. Shibatani (Ed.), The grammar of causation and interpersonal manipulation (pp. 23–56). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Grimes, B.F. (2000). Ethnologue: Languages of the world, Fourteenth Edition. Dallas, TX: SIL International. Retrieved from [URL]
Güldemann, T. (2001). Die Entlehnung pronominaler Elemente des Khoekhoe aus dem !Ui-Taa. Manuscript, Leipzig University.
Hutchisson, D. (1986). Sursurunga pronouns and the special uses of quadral number. In U. Wiesemann (Ed.), Pronominal systems (pp. 1–20). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Jespersen, O. (1894). Progress in language, with special reference to English. London: Swan Sonnenschein.
Kay, P. (1976). Discussion of papers by Kiparsky and Wescott. In S.R. Harnard, H.D. Steklis, & J. Lancaster (Eds.), Origin and evolution of language and speech (pp. 17–19). New York, NY: New York Academy of Sciences.
Keenan, E.L. (1976). Discussion. In S.R. Harnard, H.D. Steklis, & J. Lancaster (Eds.), Origin and evolution of language and speech (pp. 92–96). New York, NY: New York Academy of Sciences.
Laycock, D.C. (1982). Melanesian linguistic diversity: A Melanesian choice? In R.J. May & H. Nelson (Eds.), Melanesia: Beyond diversity (pp. 33–38). Canberra: Australian National University Press.
Nichols, J. (2007). Review: The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity by Östen Dahl. Diachronica, 24(1), 171–178.
Perkins, R.D. (1980). The covariation of culture and grammar (PhD). University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
. (1992). Deixis, grammar, and culture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. (2011). Sociolinguistic typology: Social determinants of linguistic complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cited by (8)
Cited by eight other publications
Biewer, Carolin & Kate Burridge
Mudd, Katie, Hannah Lutzenberger, Connie de Vos, Paula Fikkert, Onno Crasborn & Bart de Boer
2020. The effect of sociolinguistic factors on variation in the Kata Kolok lexicon. Asia-Pacific Language Variation 6:1 ► pp. 53 ff.
Marcus, Imogen
Reali, Florencia, Nick Chater & Morten H. Christiansen
Müller, André & Rachel Weymuth
Stirling, Lesley & Jennifer Green
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
