Gerd Carling
Academy membership
The complex case of case systems
8 August 2018 « Tillbaka
I found a fun map on twitter, from the Foreign Service Institute (see below), which categorises the difficulty of learning a language identified as number of weeks. According to the map (which applies to (American) English speakers), Swedish and French are languages that are supposed to be very easy to learn, whereas, e.g., Russian is found among the more difficult languages. Even though applied to English speakers, the map would not be very different to a speaker of Swedish or German. Why is that so? If you ask normal people (i.e., without a degree in linguistics), the answer would naturally be that languages like English and Swedish "have no grammar". If you ask what they mean by "grammar", many would come up with the answer "they have no cases".
In learning a language like Russian, we have, early on, to start learning many case forms, and then to learn the rules for how to apply them in language. This is difficult to most of us using a language with prepositions (in, on, on top of, towards) rather than cases. But why do some languages have cases instead of prepositions? Or, to reverse the question, why do some languages have prepositions instead of cases? And are really the usages of prepositions easier to learn than the usages of cases? Very few languages (such as Hungarian or Ossetian or other exotic languages in the Caucasian mountains) have as many cases as any normal language such as Swedish or English has prepositions. The rules of English prepositions are also hard to learn, and speakers of, e.g., Swedish often make mistakes in the use of prepositions.
However, if we take a look at the map of learning difficulties in contrast to the map of case system types below (data from the DiACL database), the correspondence between the two maps (in the parts that overlap) is striking. Analytical systems are the easiest, followed by fusional, and finally by agglutinating and other more complex systems. It would be very interesting to see what the map looks like to native speakers of Finnish or Russian.
Case systems are interesting, since they indicate that languages are circular in their evolution. Case systems are basically of three types:
isolating (or analytic), with no cases, relations between participants in an event is expressed by prepositions (or postpositions),
agglutinating, with cases expressed by affixes with a simple function (plural, dative), which are attached to the noun stem,
fusional, where paradigms are built by cases which may mark several functions, such as feminine + dative + plural.
Case systems are typically of one of these types, where isolating systems are small, with 0-2 distinctions (e.g., English, Swedish, Danish), fusional systems are medium-large (e.g., Russian, German), often with many different forms in the language, whereas agglutinating systems tend to be large (e.g., Finnish, Hungarian, Turkic). Agglutinating systems are ruled by the principle, one suffix – one function (e.g., plural, dative).
Systems are seldom 'pure': most languages have case systems that are partly isolating, partly, agglutinating, partly fusional. That is what makes them difficult to learn.
Why is the case situation the way it is? The structure of case systems has multiple explanations, and linguists are not yet aware of all the details in the process and development of case systems. One important reason for the outcome is language change and the cyclical behaviour of case systems: Fusional systems (e.g., Russian) tend to break down or erode to isolating systems (e.g., English), which in may merge their combinations of noun + adposition into an agglutinating system (e.g., Turkish). And agglutinating systems, again, may fuse their forms to become fusional. However, in this cycle, languages may become stuck for millennia between states, where various types of mixed, weird and complex systems, with many and irregular forms, become standard.
Besides time and cyclic change, geography and language contact shape case systems. The situation is complex: case systems show clear tendencies of sharing similarities over language, branch and family boundaries. For instance, no case is more frequent in Western Europe, fusional cases are more frequent in Eastern Europe and in various conservative pockets (islands, forests) such as in Iceland, Faroe Islands, Germany, and Dalecarlia, and agglutinating cases are more frequent on the Asian landmass (except for in the east, China). But the map is complex: historical explanations struggle with geographic explanations, which in turn struggle with typological cyclic behaviour explanations, when we try to explain the structure of case systems.
From https://twitter.com/AmericanGeo/status/1010364347502059520
Distribution of types of nominal case systems in modern (top) and ancient (bottom) languages. Dark red (1) targets no cases, green represent fusional types, pink/purple nuances agglutinating systems.
Illustration of the morphological cycle of case systems. Tocharian is an example of a mixed system which has moved in the opposite direction, from fusinal to agglutinating..
Show 1 comments >>
David Marjanović	• 9 August 2018 11:13:39
<a href="https://www.academia.edu/28783633/Revisiting_the_anasynthetic_spiral">Doubts</a> about "the morphological cycle of case systems".
New study on lexical borrowing
Tocharian World conference in Vienna
Gender assignment in the Jamtlandic variety of Scandinavian
Change in the blog
Gender stability
Saimir Lolja » The Tocharians, the mysterious people that travelled more than 4000 km and ended up in a desert: "Dear Dr. Gerd Carling This a very interesting and authoritative article. It is .."
David Marjanović » Tocharian World conference in Vienna: "The Samoyedic languages are Uralic."
Alberto » The reconstruction of Indo-European gender: "Very interesting post! Regarding the distribution of gender systems in Indo-Euro.."
Subhash Kak » Iranian and Tocharian: "I see a straighter Sanskrit derivation for some of the words; 1. sva-pati indepe.."
tito martino » Easter is coming: "Thanks for that! Happy Easter!"
Which principles govern gender assignment?
Evolutionary reconstruction of Indo-European gender
The reconstruction of Indo-European gender
Summer intermission of the historical linguistics blog
The emergence of definiteness
Sanskrit and Tocharian
Iranian and Tocharian
Sources of loans in Eurasian languages
Tocharian language contact
Principles of language change, frequency, and language universals
Marking hierarchies and language change
Deciphering ancient languages
Thoughts on Lineage and areality
Evolutionary reconstruction of grammar and the Neogrammarians
The darkest time - and our words for it
Lexical archaisms, semantic directionality and the position of Tocharian
Thoughts on Semantic evolution
Semantic evolution
From vital to toxic: the history of drink words
Divine gold and lethal iron: the Eurasian history of metallurgy terms
Why do we borrow words from other languages?
How do secret languages emerge?
Hero, lethal creature, or filthy animal? The history of pig words
The Tocharians, the mysterious people that travelled more than 4000 km and ended up in a desert
Not just 'here' and 'there': The language of deixis
PREHISTORY OF VEHICLE TERMS
BLOG ON LANGUAGE AND OTHER SCIENTIFIC MATTERS