THE STRUCTURE OF DRIFT

TIENNINGANDERSEN
State University of New York at Butfalo

0. Introduction.

Sincethe beginningsof modernhistoricallinguistics- sincethe times of

Rask and Grimm - it has been recognizedthat in languagehistories one can
observe not only individual changes,which run their coursewithin the
lifetimes of at most a few generationsof speakers,but also long-term
developments,often comprising numerousdistinct changeswhich sharea
common direction and apparentlyhave the samedegreeof mutual coherence
and the sameunity of rationaleas individual changes,but are played out over
considerablespansof time - centuries,sometimesevenmillennia.
Suchapparentlong-termdevelopments areepistemologlcallydifficult, and
linguistshavehad very differentattitudestowardthem. Somehaveaccepted
them as genuine observationsof linguistic reality, awaiting a general
explanation,ultimately, in an adequatetheory of linguistic change. Others
havelookedon themwith skepticism,wary that suchobservations might arise
spontaneouslyfrom the hindsight availableto the historical linguist and so
possiblyhaveno basisin objectivereality. Still othershavedeniedthem any
statusother than as the linguist's generalizationsabout groups of individual
changesand have viewed their apparent,or putative, internal coherenceas
nothingbut a chimera.
It is often the case,when a certainsort of phenomenonevokesdifferent
attitudesin different observers,that someof theseattitudesare more fruitful,
more productiveof understanding andinsight,and otherslessso. In the case
at hand, as in many other cases,there is no doubt that the optimists have
contributedmore than the skepticsor the pessimists; and no wonder: the
optimistshaveafter all acceptedat facevalue observationsthat are in needof
explanationand thusrepresentan intellectualchallenge.
In this paper I side with the optimists, for I want to draw attention to
aspectsof long-termdevelopments which, althoughoccasionallynotedin the
literature, do not seemto be sufficiently appreciated. They deserveto be
thematicized,inasmuchas:
 HENNING ANDERSEN

(a) they strengthenthe casefor long-term developmentsreally being what

they seem,that is, internally coherent,causallyunitaryhistorical eventsof
a greaterorderof magnitudethanindividual changes;

(b) they provide support for the structuralist explanationsof drift, first put
forward in the 1920sand 1930sby suchscholarsas Sapirandlljelmslev,
andmore recentlyelaboratedby Coseriu; and

(c) they seemto have a basis in cognitive psychology such that we may
finally be able to identify the 'mechanisms'in individual psychology
which make generationsof speakersof a languageperform innumerable,
unconsciousselectionsamong existing and emergingvariants in their
languagewith suchuniformity that theseselectionsare cumulative, over
the long run, in a specificdirection.

0.1. The presentpaperis in essencea sequelto my contributionto the

1985Paviaworkshopon the historicaldevelopmentof auxiliaries(Andersen
1e87).
In that paperI did two things. I presenteda surveyof the main parts of a
long-termdevelopmentin Polish,in which original inflectional forms of the
auxiliary verb "to be" havebecomeverbal desinences- a developmentwhich
beganperhaps700 yearsago, and which is far from completed. Secondly,I
offered an interpretationof this developmentin terms of the theory of drift,
which - apart from helping to explicatelong-termdevelomentsas such - is
well suitedto makesenseof apparentinconsistencies in their actuation,aswell
as to reconcileapparentinternal contradictionsin languagestatesobservedin
the middle of sucha long-termdevelopment.
There was a third thing I intendedto do, but which I had to delay until
now. I wantedto offer an explicationof a numberof detailsin the actuationof
this long-termdevelopment,factsaboutthe chronologyof partsof it which I
did mentionin the 1987paperbut had neithertime nor spaceto pull together
and discuss.They are the datathat this paperis primarily about.

0-2. I shall begin with an outline of my interpretationof the Polish

development(Sectionl). I do not aim to retell the entirestory that is contained
in Andersen(1987), but will try to providejust enoughinformation for the
readerwho is not familiar with that paperto appreciatethe interplay of theory
and data. The themeof this sectionwill be the fact that, a.sSapir put it, "the
linguisticdrift hasdirection"(L921:155).
 THE STRUCTURE OF DRJFT

In the following section(Section2) I thentakeup the chronologicaldetails

which I could not treat in the earlier paper,but which demandan explanation.
Here I shallhaveto mentionmore aspectsof the Polishdevelopmentrnithin a
brief compassthan I canpossiblypresentin a coherentway. The presentation
will be deliberatelyfragmentedand non-chronological,but replete with
references.Its purposewill be to demonstrate,as one might put it, that the
linguistic drift hasstructure.
Section3 will suggestthat both the observedaspectsof drift - direction
and structure - are projections in diachrony of synchronic properties of
languages,both of them rootedin the humanmind.

l. The direction of drift.

1.1. The Polish story. First view. My chosenexampleof drift is

a developmentof original inflectional forms of the auxiliary verb "to be" -
from sentenceclitics, regularly placed in clause-second position, to verbal
desinences marking personand number. The development,which may have
begunsometirne around 1300,comprisesthreepartsthat havebeenactuatedin
differenttempi.
(a) A new presenttenseparadigmof the verb "to be" was formed around
1600as the enclitic participantmarkersshiftedout of clause-second position to
be concatenated with the originally orthotonicthird-personforms of "to be"
(cf. (l) below; Andersen1987:36f.,40f.).
(b) In the preterite- which in Old Polish was composedof an enclitic
participantmarkerandan (originally resultative)participle in -/- of the lexical
verb in question- the participantmarkersappearto be gaining somefreedom
of placementat aboutthe time our attestationbegins. As time goesby, they
gradually shift toward the right in clauses,though never further to the right
than the last /- form. Throughoutthe documentedperiod, the frequencywith
which participantmarkersare concatenated with /- forms increasessteadily- to
the point where nowadaystmesis (the separationof /- form and participant
marker) by many Polesis evaluatedas bookish or archaic. Cf. Table l, the
paradigmin (l) and Andersen( 1987:29f.). Note that the figures in Table I
map into a nice approximationof the centralportion of a regularS-curve.
(c) In the conditional- in Old Polishformedfrom an enclitic form of the
conditional "to be" and an /- participle of the lexical verb - the participant
markersearly replacedthe original desinences of the enclitic auxiliary through
analogicalleveling (cf. Andersen1987:34f.). Sincethe 1500s,the enclitic
stringscomposedof conditionalandparticipantmarkerhavebegunto gravitate
out of clause-second position and toward concatenationwith /- forms. Cf.
 HENNING ANDERSEN

1400s 1500s 1600s 1700s 1800s 1900s Exp.pr.

1300s-
l0o/o 22o/o 50Vo 690/o 72o/o E5o/o 92o/o

Table l. Proportionof participantmarkersconcatenated with /- forms

artistic
in the Polishpreterite. The figuresfor the 1900sseparale,
prosefrom expositoryprose. Cf. Rittel (1975:91f.).

Table 2 and the paradigm in (l). The figures in Table 2 map into an
approximation of the initial portion of a regular S-curve.

1500s 1600s 1700s 1800s 1900s

7o/o l2o/o 17o/o 30o/o 37o/o

Table 2. Proportionof conditionalplus participant-marker

with 1-forms in the Polish conditional.
stringsconcatCnated
Cf. Rittel( I 975:149f.).

1.2. Quantity into quality? It is easyto seefrom the preceding

presentationthat thereis a tendencyin this languagefor participantmarkersto
changefrom sentenceclitics into desinences.But it is hard to pinpoint these
changesin time. Everyonewould agree,probably,that the caseof the present
tenseof "to be" (item (a) in Sectionl.l) can be consideredclosed. But how
does one decide whether the participant markers in the preterite or the
conditionalare still sentenceclitics or have definitively becomedesinences?
How often doesa clitic have to be attachedto a given classof hostsbefore it
becomesa desinence?Is therea sort of frequencythresholdat which quantity
is transformedinto qualitf
Answersto thesequestionswill be implicit in the presentationbelow, but
let first consideranotheraspectof the drift.
us
Developmentslike this often include processesof univerbationby which
concatenations of the formerly separateentitiesare welded together. In the
caseat hand one can speakof prosodicand of segmental(morphophonemic)
univerbation.
The prosodic univerbation is the formation of new domains for the
application of the Polish penultimatestressrule. The paradigmsin ( l) show
how the penultimatestressde appliesin the presenttenseof "to be" andin the
preterite and conditional of "to speak", which exemplifies verbs with
polysyllabic /- forms; 'separabledesinences'are indicatedwith a =; the
exampleshere and below are in phonemicnotation. It looks asif the rule
 THE STRUCTURE
OF DRIFT

(l) Presentof Preterite Conditional

"to be' t'spoke" "wotrld speak"

lst. sg. j'est-em muf il=em m'u{il= by-m

2nd sg. j'est-ei muf il=e6 m'uii|=by-S
3rd sg. j'est m'uvi I m'uiil= by
lst pl. jest-'e6my muf ilizimy muf ili= by-imy
2ndpl. jest-'ei6e muf ili=Sde muf ili= by-Sie
3rd pl. s'? muf ili muf ili= by

considerssomeparticipantmarkerspart of the prosodicword, but othersnot

(the latter are in italics), even though all of them are still free to occur
unconcatenated with the /- form; cf. Andersen(1987:3lff., 36). The contrast
betweenthe prosodicuniverbationin forms like mut'ilem, muf 'fief in (l),
and the apparentabsenceof univerbationin the correspondingplural forms
probably dates from the 1700s. Innovative stresseslike mufif iimy,
mu{'il'i6ie aregainingin frequencyin Modern Polish. They suggestthat the
plural forms are c'urrentlyundergoinguniverbation.
Segmentaluniverbationincludesseveralphenomena,the mostinteresting
one of thembeing the redistributionin one classof verbs(obstruentstems)of
the inherited alternantsin the preterite. The inheritedaltemation in (2a) has
(2) (a) masorline feminine (b) masculine feminine

lst sg. {us=em {ozl-a=m fozl =em fol-a=m

2nd sg. Vus=e5 {ozl-a=S {ozl=e3 ,iozl-a=S
3rd sg. Vus iozl- a Vus ,hzt-a
lst pl. rieil-i=Smy fozl-y=Smy 'fell-i=imy fozl-56my
2nd pl. {eil-i=S& iozl-y=S(e (,eil-i=S(e ioz)-y=3t6"
3rd pl. {eil-i {ozl- y n*a-i ,fud.-y

beenpreservedin somedialectsof Polish,but in others- including thoseon

which the standardlanguageis based- the masculinesingular free form
occurring before the first and secondperson singular markers (note its
characteristicvocalism and word final devoicing)has been replacedby the
bound stem occurring in the feminine and the plural, as in (2u1. This
morphophonemicuniverbationtook placein somevarietiesof Polishbefore the
1500s- at a time when the drift towardconcatenationhad barelygottenunder
way (cf. Andersen1987:39, 45).
Somemight expectthat concatenation would haveto be ovenvhelmingly
the rule beforeuniverbationcould takeplace. The evidenceshowsthat in this
 HENNING ANDERSEN

instanceof drift there is no such temporal relationshipbetweenthe tendency

toward more frequent concatenationand morphophonemicor prosodic
univerbation. This is perhapsa usefulhint. For the mutual independence of
these two kinds of processwould make god senseif each of them was
conditionedor determinedby somemorebasicpropertyof the language.

1.3. The Polish story. Second view. Lookingaroundfor some

linguistic changein Early Polish which might be equally relevantto the drift
toward concatenationand the processesof univerbation, I noted that
traditionally Polish linguists have spoken of the participant markers as
'auxiliaries' - with referenceto all periodsof the history of the language,even
ContemporaryPolish. This made me wonder when theseentities actually
ceasedto be verb forms and becamewhat they are now, mere markers of
personand number.
The answer to this questioncomes out of an analysisof the major
reorganizationof the Polish tensesystemwhich took place,at leastin some
partsof Poland,before 1300(Andersen1987:23-26).
The pre-Polishtensesystemcomprisedthreesimpletenses(present,aorist
andimperfect)and correspondingcompoundtenses(calledperfect,pluperfectI
andpluperfectII) composedof a simpletenseform of "to be" plus a resultative
participleof the lexicalverb in question.In the 1200s,the aoristandimperfect
fell into disuse, being replacedby the perfect; and with the aorist and
imperfect,alsothe two pluperfectswent out of use. This developmentleft the
languagewith only two of the inheritedtenses,the presentand the original
perfect(which we no\il term the preterite).
The recastingof the tensesystemhad consequences for both the original
auxiliary and the original participles. With the demiseof the simple past
tenses,the original presenttenseforms of "to be" were no longer opposedto
any past tenseforms with personmarking. Furthermore,they occurred as
parts of compoundpreterite forms. Herewith the backgroundwas given for
two reinterpretations.The original presenttenseforms of "to be" could be
reinterpretedas merepersonand numbermarkers. And the original resultative
participles could be reinterpretedas finite non-presentforms, the -/- in
particularasthe preterite('distal tense')marker.
The momentthesereinterpretationsof thecoNrEl.IT of the /- forms and the
(a)
participantmarkersoccurred,therewould be grounds for revaluatingtheir
sYltrAcrlc statusand (b) for adjustingtheir EXPRESSIoN accordingly.
As for the syntactic statusof the participant markers, let me confessat
oncethat the whole discussionof the drift towardconcatenationabove (Section
l.l), by following the tradition,wasbadly out of focus. Superficiallyit looks
 THE STRUCTUREOF DRIFT

as if the participantmarkershaveundergonea significantchangefrom sentence

clitics to desinences,and this is the way the developmenthas always been
understood. In fact, however, the participant markers have always been
dependenton having a host at their left margin - they have always been
suffixes. The crucial syntacticinnovationconcernedthe /- forms.
In Andersen(1987)I proposedthatthe entiredrift towardconcatenation of
/- forms and participantmarkerswas poweredby the consistentvaluationby
learnersof the language- eversincethe reorganization of the pre-polishtense
system - of /- forms as finite verb stems. In accordance with the
morphotacticsof the language,they were consequentlyconstruedas bound
forms which require the attachmentat their right margin of an affix marking
personand number.
This hypothesisexplainsthe variousmovestoward univerbationwhich
have occurredin the past and are taking placenow. It explainsthe ever so
gradualdrift toward concatenation as resultingfrom a centuries-longtension
betweentwo forces: the force of tradition, codified in the norms of the
language,and the drive toward internal conformity betweenthe type of the
languageand its system,and betweenthe systemand the nonns. This
hlpothesis,finally, agreeswith the feelingof nativespeakersof Polishthat the
participantmarken are part and parcelof the verb forms, even though they
remainmobile.

l-4- The direction of drift. Herethenis the Polishstoryexplicated

in termsof the theory of drift, that part of the theoryof languagechangewhich
specifi cally concernsinternally motivatedlong-term developments.
By its type, Polish is and - as far back as we can go - has been
predominantlyagglutinative(with somefusionandsymbolism). Specifically,
its finite verb forms (presenttense,imperative)comprisea bound stem
followedby markersof personandnumber.
Oncethe pre-Polishtenseslatemhadbeenreinterpreted,the finite preterite
forms would - given thesetypological premisses- more often than not be
construedasbound stemsand the participantmarkersastheir desinences.This
understandingof the systemhasmadespeakers- at any time sincethe 1300s-
produceusagecontaininga higher proportion of concatenatedforms than was
sanctionedby the norms of the languageat the given time. Of coursethe
norrns of each generationhave had to be abducedfrom the usageof their
predecessors- hence the slow, gradual increase in the frequency of
concatenatedforms. The sameunderstandingof the systemhas made the
speakersproduce morphophonemicinnovations,such as the use of bound
ratherthan free allomorphsof /- forms in concatenated preterites,illustratedin
 HENNING ANDERSEN

(2), an innovationthat was early codified by the norms. And it hasmadethem

produce innovationsin stressplacement,giving overt expressionto the
morphosyntacticstatusof the concatenatedforms as morphological - and
hence,ideally, prosodic- words"
The conservatismof the nonnsand the tensionbetweenthe normsand the
system-motivatedinnovative usageis fairly well documented. In some
respectsthe power of the norms has been remarkable. For instance,
grammariansissuethe first wamingsagainstpenultimatestressin the italicized
forms of (1) around 1800. Penultimatestressmay be gaining in currency
now, two hundredyearslater (Topoliriska1961:48),but it is still not accepted
by the orthoepicnonns. On the other hand, the growth in the frequencyof
concatenation hasbeenimperceptible,unremittingandineluctable.
The developmentis a perfectexampleof the theoryof drift elaboratedby
Coseriu(1962, 1971,1975)andintegrated with the theoryof evolutivechange
of Andersen (1973; cf. also 1978, 1980). It corresponds well to what Sapir
understoodby drift, and it will serve as a neat demonstration of how the
"groundplan" or "structural genius" of a langUage provides that "deep
controllingimpulseto form that dominateslitsl drift" (Sapir 1921:144, 170).
And it agreesas well with Hjelmslev'sconception of the language type asan
optimum, which the given linguistic system, ceteris paribus, will tend to
approachthroughits changes(Hjelmslev1934/1972:148).
But whetherone acceptsthis theoryor not, thereis no denyingthat "the
linguistic drift hasdirection".

2. The structure of drift.

2.O. The structure of drift. In theprecedingbird's-eyeview of the

Polishdrift towardan inflectedpreteriteI mentionedonly a few of the changes
that directly form part of this development.And sincethe focusin that section
was on the directionof the drift, I deliberatelyemphasizedthe very smooth,
gradual actuation of the main portions of the development,which - as I
mentioned- mapneatlyinto S-curves.
In this sectionI shall touch on a few more aspectsof this long-term
developmentwith the specificaim of reportingon a numberof observations,
recordedin the relevantliterature,which concernits step-by-stepactuation
(Sections2.1-2.2).
As I mentionedin the introduction(Section0. 1),thepresentation herewill
be deliberatelyfragmented and non-chronological.This will enableme to give
a more conciseexpositioncf the I
observations want to mention.
 THE STRUCTUREOF DRIFT

There is a remarkable regularity among these observations, which will be

evident from Table 3, and which calls for an explanation. I shall offer some
discussionin section2.3, but let us first look at the data.
I begin with the main development, which is familiar from the presentation
in Section 1.

2 .L . C o n c a te n a ti o n . S ecti on 1.1 surveyed the dri fr tow ard

concatenation in the present tense of "to be", in the preterite, and in the
conditional mood. It was noted that the drift was actuated at very different
rates in these three morphological contexts.
POINTNo. 1. Concatenation occurred earlier in the present tense (of "to
be") than in the preterite (of "to be" or other verbs).
POINTNo.2. Concatenation occurred earlier in the indicative mood (the
present and preterite tenses)than in the conditional.
It is evident that these observations can be rephrased in terms of
markedness: concatenation occurred earlier in the unmarked than in the marked
tense, and earlier in the unmarked than in the marked mood. I will return to
this topic in Section 2.3. The observations mentioned here and below are
summarized in Table 3 below.

2-L-1. The following observations concern specifically the development

of the preterite.
POINTNo. 3. The singular participant markers were concatenatedearlier
than the plural ones @ecaux 1955:28).
This is a matter of textual attestation. Note that this fact about
concatenation is distinct from the language internal evidence of prosodic
univerbation (cf. section 1.2), but is consistentwith it.
It is also consistent with the fact that, in Modern Polish, the plural
participant markers occur more frequently in tmesis than the singular ones
G.ittel 1975:86).
POINTNo.4. In the singular, the first person marker was concatenated
earlier than the second person marker (Topoliriska 196l:47).
In describing the development of the participant markers in Old polish it is
important to distinguish their 'emancipation' from clause-secondposition from
their concatenationwith finite verb stems.
POINTNo.5. Deviations from clause-secondposition became common
earlier in main clausesthan in subordinateclauses@ittel 1975:gg).
POINTt'to.6. Deviations from clause-secondposition became common
earlier in asyndetic clausesthan in clausesintroduced by a conjunction.
t0 HENNING ANDERSEN

porNrNo.7. Clausesbeginningwith a full noun phrasemore commonly

deviatedfrom the clause-secondrule than clausesbeginning with a pronoun
(Riuel1975:88).
ItrNT No.8. Concatenationwith /- forms becamecommonearlier in main
clausesthanin subordinate clauses(Rittel 1975:88).
porNrNo.9. Centuryby century,both deviationsfrom the clause-second
rule and concatenationwith 1-forms are reflectedmore widely in prosethan in
poetry(Rittel I 975:9I f.).
porNTNo.10. In the modernperiod, concatenationis more frequentin
expositorythanin artisticprose(cf. Table l; Rittel 1975:92).
porNTNo. I 1. In Modern StandardPolish, concatenationis more
consistentin speechthan in writing.
tbrNr No.12. Similarly, concatenationis more consistentin casualthan in
formal speech.
Of theseobservations,points l-4 refer to morphological categories;
points 5-8 refer to featuresof information structure which are evidently
correlatedwith groundingdistinctions(in the senseof Hopper & Thompson
1980); points 9- 10 refer to genrecategories,point I I to a differencebetween
media,andpoint 12 toa stylisticdifference(cf. Table3).

More compatible kss compatible Point

with innovation with innovation no.

Morphologr€l presenttense preterite I

categories indicative mood conditional 2
singularnumber plural 3, 15
plural number drnl 16
third person otherpersons 17
first person secondperson 4
Grounding main clauses subordinate clauses 5, 8, 13
distinctions asyndeticclauses syndeticclauses 6, 14
initial lexical noun initial pronoun 7
Genre categories prose poetry 9
expositoryprose artisticprose l0
secularcontent religiouscontent 19
Media spoken wriffen I l, l8
Styles casual formal 12

Table 3.
 THE STRUCTUREOF DRIFT ll

2.1.2. Regardingthe developmentof the conditional,Rittel makesa

coupleof observations (1975:120).
bINTNo. 13. Deviationsfrom clause-second placementof the conditional
clitic stringare more numerousin main clausesthanin subordinateclauses.
PoINTNo.14. Deviationsare stronglydisfavoredin clausesintroducedby
a conjunction.

2-2. The participant markers. In thedevelopmentof the preterite

(Section 1.1), the auxiliary was regularly omitted in the rhird persons
(singular,plural and dual), alreadybefore the attestedperiod (cf. Andersen
1987:25, 27ff.). This is why the third person forms in (l) have a zero
participant marker.
But sideby sidewith the encliticparticipantmarkersdiscussedin Section
l.l' Old Polishmaintainedthe original orthotonicforms in emphaticfunction
until they were superseded by other expressivemeans(word order, sentence
stressand intonation). The emphaticthird personforms went out of usein the
1400s-1600s, first Tesf"3rd sg.", then qr '3rd p1.", finally jesta"3rd du."
(Decaux1955:l27ff.).
PoINTNo.15. New means of expressionfor the emphatic preterite
facilitate the omissionof the (originally emphatic) third person predicator
earlierin the singularthanin the plural.
PoINrNo. 16. Similarly, the (originally emphatic)third personpredicator
is omittedearlierin the plural thanin the dual.
The orthotonic first and secondperson forms went out of use in the
1500s,being at first supplantedby combinationsof the respectiveparticipant
markerplus an emphaticpredicator,s1r"p1." , jest "sg. or sg"/pl." (Andersen
1987:28).
PoINTNo.17. New means of expressionfor the emphatic preterite
developedearlierin the third personthan in the otherpersons.
bINrno. 18. The demiseof the orthotonicforms is attestedearlierin texts
that reflect speech(e.g. depositions)than in textscomposedin writing.
Fon'ITNo. 19. The orthotonicforms disappearfrom usageearlierin secular
textsthan in religioustexts.

2-3. I haveincludedin Table 3 all the obsenrationsregardingthe process

of actuationthatwerc enumerated in SectionsZ.l-2.2.
At this point, beforewe considerthe implicationsof theseobservations,
we shouldperhapsnote that they were madeby different investigators,without
any pre-existingexplanatorytheory in mind, and publishedby their authors
solely with the aim of describingas fully aspossiblewhat is plain to see.
t2 HENNING ANDERSEN

Thereis no guarantee,consequently,that the variablesmentionedin Table

3 are particularlygennaneto the phenomenathey are intendedto describe,or
that they describethem fully; nor that theywill be particularlyamenableto any
explanatoryhlpothesis.
On the other hand,haphazardand imprecisethough the observationsmay
be, the fact that they were madewithout any ulterior motive speaksin favor of
their reliability as impartialtestimony,andthey may reasonablybe takenat face
value.

2.3.1. The observationssummanzedin Table 3 documentthat the

complex of changeswhich this developmentcomprisedwas actuatedwith
intermediatestepsdefinedwith referenceto a variety of grammatical,pragmatic
and (broadly speaking)stylistic categories.
As the tableshows, severalof theseare relevantto more than onepart of
the development.It is easyto imaginethat this is in fact the casewith more of
them than was noted by the severalinvestigators,and one could wish for a
systematicinvestigationthat would determineto what extentthis is so. For the
time being, however,we must be contentwith the data we have. But even
with their limitations,thesedata documentinternal coherence,in this one
development,so pervasivethat it cannotbe setasideas coincidental,but must
be acceptedaspart of the factualmaterialthe historicallinguist's accounthasto
describeand explicate.
Let us note the remarkablesimilarity of the variablesin Table 3. True,
they are easilysortedinto differentcategories.But every one of them canbe
immediatelyrecognizedas forming a contrastor oppositionin markedness.
And they are all identically aligned,with the unmarkedterm of eachpair in the
left-handcolumnandthe markedterm to the right. The table,in short,attests
to a strongcorrelation,in this development,betweenthe markednessof
differentconceptual,grammaticalandtextualcontexts,andtheir compatibility
with innovation.

2.3.2. What this meanson a generallevel is that thereis more to be

understoodaboutlong-termdevelopments thanthe fact that drift hasdirection.
The grossstatisticaldataon a long-term development,suchas the figures
cited in Section l.l, may translateinto a smoothcurve. But the momentthe
developmentis examinedwith a bit of attentionto a few linguistic categories,
suchas thosein Table 3, it becomesapparentthat the smooth curves capture
only a very small part of the total picture - the most superficialview. An
attempt to grasp the whole picture is rewardedwith the discovery that in
reality, the superficiallysmoothtransitionin discoursebetweenthe initial stage
 THE STRUCTUREOF DBJFT t3

and the final stageof a long-termdevelopmentis generatedby a multiplicity of

variables,largely binary (or so regarded),which are inherentto the grammarof
the languageor to the wider communicativecodesthat govern its ur. ut every
stageduring the development.What one discovers,when one looks beyond
the statisticalcurves,is that drift hasstructure.

3. From synchrony to diachrony.

3-0- The fact that drift has direction is generally recognized(at least
amongthe optimistswho considerlong-termdevelopments real),ild it is well
understood(by thosewho acceptthe theory of drift). The structureof drift -
the apparentcorrelation between markednessvalues in diverse linguistic
categoriesand their relativecompatibilitywith innovations- is less well
established, andit is not fully understoodby anyoneyet.
In this sectionI want to supplementand comparethe findingsreportedin
Section2 with someadditionalobservations, andI want to showhow, in fact,
certainelementsof the theoryof drift makeit understandable why markedness
relationsin languagewould struc"ture the actuationof linguistic change.
We mustb"g,n with a closerlook at the theoryof drift.

3- l- Why drift has direction. The chiefingredients in the theoryof

drift - whetherwe considerSapir'sor Hjelmslev'searlysketchesor Coseriu's
more explicit version- are threehypotheses:(a) that a grirmmaris organized
into severallevelsof abstraction(norms,systemandtlpe); (b) that theremay
be unconformitiesbetweenadjacentlevelsof organization;and (c) that in the
normalcourseof events,suchunconformitiesare eliminated,the systembeing
brought into conformity with the type, the norms into conformity with the
system.

3- l - l - If we inquire why drift hasdirection,the answermust mention

the fact that languageis transmittedfrom generationto generation- or, nather,
that grammarsare acquiredby one generationafter another. And the answer
must make explicit the following hlpothetical view of the relativeimportance
of t1pe, systemand normsin languageacquisition.
In the acquisitionof a grammar,tlpological propertiesofit (aspectsof the
'groundplan',
alias 'parametersettings')are inferred concurrentlywith the
system and may form part of the premissesthat enter into the learner's
inferenceof the system. As a consequence, elementsof a systemmay be
construednot so much on the basisof the evidenceof usageavailable to the
learner(abductively),but ratherby the impositionof preconceivedsolutions
l4 HENNING ANDERSEN

(deductively; cf. Andersen 1987:42,48 and the examplein Section 1.4

above).
The systemis inferred concurrentlywith the normsand forms the basis
for the individual's definition of the norms- both in thoserespectswherethe
norrnscodify usagethat is derivableby productiverules of the systemand
wherethe usagecodifiedby the nonns is motivatedonly by tradition.
The usageof the individual speakerwill to a largeextentcorrespondto the
norms (as he perceivesthem), but whenevera speakergoes beyond his
linguistic experience,his usagewill usually reflect the productiverules that
form the coreof his competence.Communityusagewill consequently always
contain deviations from the norms, deductiveinnovations,which in some
measurewill strengthenthe norms, in some measureweakenthem. The
innovationswill strengthen,respectivelyweakenthe normsin the sensethat
for subsequentlearnersusagewill appearmore uniform in the respectsin
which the normsconfonn to the system,but variablein thoserespectsin which
the normsareat variancewith it.

3.1.2. But in this accountthe real reasonwhy drift has directionhas

nothingessentialto do with the dimensionof time. Rather,the directedness of
drift is a consequence of the assumedrank relationsamongthe threelevelsof
organization.
The two hlpotheses(a) that grammaris organizedin this way and (b) that
there may be unconformitiesbetweendifferent levels of organrzation(cf.
Section3.1) are neededindependentlyof the phenomenonof drift. (Cf.,
specifically regardingthe systemvs. nonn distinction,Sapir l92l:148f.,
156f.,164f.; fljelmslev 1934/1972:27 -34; Coseriu1962,1975.)
Among other things, we needthesehypothesesin order to understand
such intemally inconsistentlanguagestatesas the Polish one that was briefly
touchedon in Sectionsl.l-1.2. Without theseor similarhlpothesesthereis
no escapefrom the nominalistmurk in which the Polishparticipantmarkersare
recognizedas desinenceswhen they are attachedto an /- form and as enclitics
elsewhere. But with this understandingof the differentiated organizationof
grammarwe can see,beyondthe brute factsof usage,that in the systemof this
languagetheseare desinences(as we would expectfrom its type), which the
conservativenorms allow to occur detachedfrom their stemswith specific
stylistic values,but which are more naturallyconcatenated
with their stems.

3.1.3. The real sourceof the directionof drift, then, is the relations
betweentype and systemandbetweensystemand norms.
 THE STRUCTUREOF DRIFT t5

To understandtheserelationsit would be useful to be able to comparethe

three-levelorganizationof grammarto other cognitivestructures.Now, the
tlpe-system-nolms tripartition hasbeenproposedfor languageas suigeneris,
solely in order to accountfor factsof linguistic synchronyand diachrony. But
it seemsreasonableto assumethat also other aspectsof human behavior are
dependenton similarly structuredcompetences- with socially valued routines
on one level, productiverulesor schemasof actionon another,andprinciples
of rule formationorplanning on a third.
In fact, despitethe vast differences,it is possibleto comparethe putative
organizationof linguistic knowledgeto taxonomicstructures. It exhibits a
similar kind of relationbetweenadjacentlevelsto thoseof a taxonomyin that
the functionalrelationshipis oneof similarity. Obviously,it diffen radically
from taxonomiesby allowing for the existenceof unconformities. But these
are clearly non-optimalelements.The relationships,on the level of the nonns,
betweensystemicallymotivated and unmotivatedpatternsare markedness
relations- which is why unmotivatedpatternsare exposedto elimination.
Similarly, on the level of the system,tlpologically incongruentpatternsare
markedin relationto the congruentones,which is why, as Hjelmslev put it,
the system- as it changes- will approachthe optimum of the t}?e.
Thesesynchronicmarkedness relations,then,are part of the explanation
for the direction of drift. They are central,as well, to an explanationof the
structureof drift.

3-2- Why drift has structure. A correlationbetweenmarkedness

values,as in the variableslisted in Table 3, and relative compatibility with
innovationswas first noted,with referenceto phonology,in Andersen(1972)
andwas subsequentlyexploredin historicalsyntaxby Timberlake(1977).
Timberlake examinedseveralsyntacticchanges(in Finnish and Russian)
and found that eachof the changeswas "actualizedearlier in contextsthat are
unmarked... and laterin contextsthataremarked...", addingthe provisothat
the markednessvaluesof the respectivecontextsbe defined in relation to a
superondinate semanticor conceptualfeaturerelevantto the changein question
(1977:162). Thus, for instanib,in the gradualreplacementof the genitive of
negationwith the accusativein Russian,the categoryterms in the left-hand
column in Table 4, which favor the innovation,areunmarked,and thosein the
right-handcolumn marked,in relationto the generalnotion of individuation',
which is directly relevantto the differencein grammaticalmeaningbetweenthe
two casesinvolved in change.
Although Timberlake's paper has been widely cited, it seemsthat its
theoreticalclaim regarding the role of markedness in the actuationof syntactic
l6 HENNING ANDERSEN

More compatible kss compatible

with innovation with innovation

propernoun commonnoun
human non-human
animate inanimate
concrete abstract
singular plural
definite indefinite

Table 4.

changehas been largely passedover. Perhapsthe widespreadskepticism

regardingthe utility of the notion of markednesshasplayed a role here. But I
suspectthat the chief reasonis the apparentsuccesswith which Timberlake
was able to explain the gradual actuationof the changeshe examined,as
'natural' in terms of the governing semanticor conceptualfeatures. This
successmay have made his appeal to markednessseeman inessentialand
dispensiblepart of his theory of reanalysisand acf;"lcrltzation,eventhoughhe in
fact madethis a centralpart of his presentation.
In the caseof the Polish drift towardsverbal inflection it is lesseasyto
disregardthe markednessvaluesin its acftntion.
For one thing, the variablesin Table 3 havenothing in commonother than
this very generalrelationalcharacter.Of course,it is possibleto extendthe
notion of grounding,reflectedin someof the syntacticvariables,to someof
the morphological categoriesin the table. But by the time one has extended
this notion to coverall the variablesattestedin the drift, all onewill be left with
is the generalrelationalcharacterof markedness.
For anotherthing, thereis no way in which the step-wiseactuationof this
development can be explained by reference to semantic features. The
developmentfrom non-concatenation to concatenationis aspurely syntactica
changeas one can imagine.
The comparisonwith Timberlake'sexamplesof syntacticchangeis useful
indeed. It showsthat markednessvalues may be defined in relation to a
context(contiguousor concurrent)or absolutely(cf. Andersen1972:45).But
once allowanceis made for this distinction,Timberlake'sexamplesand the
Polish drift are on a par and demand,with equalurgency,an explanationof the
apparentlygreatercompatibility of unmarkedcontextswith innovation.

3.2.1. In the illustration of the directionof the Polish drift in Section

1.4 (cf. also Section3.1l), it was shownhow - once/- froms and participant
 THE STRUCTUREOF DRIFT L7

markerswere definedas stemsand desinencesin the systemof the language-

successivegenerationsof speakerswould unwittingly allow the relative
frequencyof concatenatedforms to increase.This accountof drift is adequate
to explain suchgrossstatisticaldataas the figuresin Tables I and 2. But it
seemsto imply that the generaldrift toward concatenationwas unordered-
which it was not.
The orderly actuationof the Polish developmentis evidencethat the
attestedusagewas producedby (the natural languageequivalentof) variable
rules. A slatematicinvestigationof the textualrecordmay allow us to track the
emergenceof someof theserules (when the innovationbeginsto occur and
gain in frequencyin unmarkedcontexts),their developmentto categorical
form, and their decline (as the innovation becomesas frequent in the
correspondingmarked contexts). But more likely, the picture will remain
fairly fragmentary,for the textual attestationreflects not a representative
sample, but a haphazardcollection of voices with geographical and
generationaldifferenceswe cannot control for. In any case,the relatively
abundantdocumentationof this long-termdevelopmentindicatesthat during its
entire course,the system-motivated concatenations of preteritestemsand
desinenceshave been easedinto usage- imperceptibly and ineluctably -
througha complexof variableruleswhoseentiretyremainsto be determined.
The rulesraisemore questionsthanI cananswer,but thereis no harm in
trying.

3-2-2- One wondershow thesevariablerulesarose,what sort of usage

they may havebeenabducedfrom.
In the caseof the changesdiscussedby Timberlake(l977), one can
imaginehow the semanticaffinities between,say, one of the fwo alternative
casesand one tlpe of contextwould produceasufficiently skeweddistribution
in usagethat it would serveasa basisfor the abductionof a variablerule. This
is in fact the spirit of Timberlake'saccount. In the caseof the Polish drift,
where the two variants have never differed in meaning, this seemsquite
unlikely. Most probably,the variablerulesattestedin this developmenthaveto
be understoodas spontaneousinnovations (in the sense of Andersen
Forthcomingb), that is, as regularizations- initially tentativeand individual -
of mere fluctuation in usage,only secondarilygiving rise to discernible
distributionalregularities.Of course,we cannotreally know. But as part of
the answerto the questionwhy drift hasstructure,it hasto be noted that such
structure may result when speakersof a language impose order where
previously therewas none.
t8 HENNING ANDERSEN

One wonderswhy the variation was defined in terms of precisely the

variableslistedin Table 3.
The absenceof any indicationsof sociolinguisticvariation is interesting,
thoughperhapsnot significant. One might guessthat in a societywhere there
is no particularuse for sociolinguisticindexes,variation rules simply make
referenceto more centrallinguistic categories.The absenceof any semantic
value attachedto the pairs of variants(concatenated and not) may be a relevant
consideration,too. But on the whole, here is a question that is best
approachedafter contrastivematerialhasbeencollectedfrom other long-term
developments.
What motivated the correlationbetween innovation and unmarked
contexts?
I think it takesseveralstepsto answerthis question.
In the first place,it seems,we mustdeterminethe markedness valueof the
innovatedforms we havediscussed.In accordancewith the remarksat the end
of Section3.13,the (innovated)concatenated forms,beingin accordance with
the speakers'understandingof the system,may be consideredunmarkedin
relation to the non-concatenatedforms. This meansthat the correlation we
wish to understandis betweenthe markednessvaluesof the two variantsof the
inflectedforms andthe equivalentmarkedness valuesof a variety of contextsin
which they are distributed.
The secondstepis to motivatethis correlationof unmarkedwith unmarked
and markedwith marked. I can do no better,at this point, than suggestthe
relevanceof a generalizationI have presented elsewhere (Andersen
Forthcominga) regardinga number of different types of rule-governed
behavior. In ritual, in grammaticalparallelism,in the structureof narratives,:ls
in phonetics,morphophonemics and the variablerulesof syntax,it seemsto be
the casethat the oppositeterms of any featureor variable which is not being
exploited for communicativepurposes,will be distributedin the most orderly
fashion possible, which is, in such a way as to maximize homogeneous
syntagmaticcombinations. On the backgroundof this generalization,one
wotrld expectpreciselythat the unmarkedPolishpreteriteformswould occur in
unmarkedcontextsandthe markedonesin markedcontexts- if sucha variable
rule were to be stabilizedas part of a synchronicgrammar. Given the stable
internal pressurein favor of the concatenatedforms, the usageof the language
has reflected the diachronic counterpartof such a variation, the gradual
ascendancyof the new forms, first in unmarkedcontextsand then in the
conespondingmarkedones.
But there is a third unknown behind this answer. To understandwhy
concatenated andunconcatenated forms of the Polishpreteritewould be aligned
 THE STRUCTUREOF DRIFT t9

with different categoriesof person and tense, different kinds of clauses,

different genresand stylesof discourse,one must envisagea vast network of
associationthat readily relatesunmarkedwith unmarkedand marked with
marked,in part irrespectiveof the substantivecharacterof the categories,in
part preciselyrespectingthis substantivecontent.
It is this structurethat is reflected,howeverselectively,in the linguistic
drift.

3.3. Conclusion. In the last few pagesI havetried to show that both
the direction of drift and the structureof drift reflect aspectsof language
structure. This is in completeaccordwith the approachof Edward Sapir,
whoseinspired, but sketchyaccountof drift I havetried to developin various
directions.
I think now that it is possibleto substantiatethe claim, first formulatedby
Sapir, that "the drift of a languageis constitutedby the unconsciousselection
on the part of its speakersof thoseindividual variationsthat arecumulativein a
specialdirection"(1921:155).As long as onelooksonly at the surfaceof the
currentof changein a language- changesin relative frequencysuch as those
cited in Section I - the claim that the speakersunconsciouslycontrol the
directionof changemay seemfar-fetched,ild it is perhapsunderstandable that
many would think twice about holding the poor unconsciousspeakers
accountable.But when the linguistic dimensionsof a drift are broughtto light,
and it is shownthat the drift reflectsthe gradualmodification of variablerules,
it becomesdifficult to abstractfrom the speakers.When one considersthe
possibleoriginsof suchregularities,it becomesimpossible.
Sapir saw that "we shall not advance seriously until we study the
intuitional basesof speech". He askedrhetorically- and I take the liberty of
generalizinghis questionby omitting the referenceto phonetics- "How canwe
understandthe natureof the drift that frays and reforms ... patternswhen we
have never thought of studying ... patterningas suchand the 'weights' and
psychicrelationsof the singleelements... in thesepattems?"(p. 183)
By openingup the questionof the structureof drift and looking at the
weights and psychic relations of the elementsinvolved, I hope to have
contributedto our advance.

REFERENCES

Andersen,
Henning.1972."Diphthongization".
Language
48.I l-50.
20 HENNING ANDERSEN

Andersen,Henning. 1973. "Abductive and deductivechange". Language

49.567-595.
Andersen,Henning. 1978. "Vocalic and consonantallanguages". Studia
Linguistica A.V. Isstschenko ab Collegis et Amicis oblata ed. by L.
Durovid et al., l-12. Lisse: de RidderPress.
Andersen,Henning. 1980. "Morphological change:towards a typology".
RecentDevelopmentsin Historical Moryhology ed. by JacekFisiak, I -
50. The Hague: Mouton.
Andersen,Henning. 1987. "From auxiliary to desinence". The Historical
Developmentof Auxilianes ed. by Martin Harris & PaoloRamat,2l-51.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Andersen,Henning. Forthcominga. "On the projection of equivalence
relations into syntagms". New Vistas in Grammar: Invariance and
Variation ed. by StephenRudy. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Andersen,Henning. Forthcomingb. "Understandinglinguistic innovations".
I-anguageChange: Do We Know lts CausesYet. Papercfrom a SWW-
sium ed. by Leiv Erik Breivik & ErnstHikon Jahr. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Coseriu,Eugenio. 1962. "Sistema,nonna y habla". Teorladel lengtaie y
Iingiiisticagenenl. Cinco estudios,I l- 113. Madrid: Gredos.
Coseriu,Eugenio. 197l. "synchronie,Diachronieund Tlpologie". Spnche,
Strukturen und Funktionen. XII Aufsdtze zur allgemeinen und
romanischen Sprachwissenschafted. by Uwe Petersen,91-108.
Ttibingen: Narr.
Coseriu,Eugenio. 1975. "System,Norm und Rede". Spnchtheorie und
allgemeineSptachwissenschaft.5 Sudien translatedby Uwe Petersen,
l1-101. Munich:Fink.
Decaux,Etienne. 1955. Moryhologiedesenclitiquespolonals.Paris: Instirut
d'EtudesSlaves.
Hjelmslev, Louis. 1972. Sprogsystemog sprogfonndring. (= Travaux du
Cerclelingaistique de Copenhague,15.) Copenhagen:Nordisk Sprog-
og Kulturforlag.
Hopper,PaulJ. & SandraA. Thompson. 1980. "Transitivity in grammarand
discourse". I-anguage56.251-299.
Rittel, Teodozja. 1975. Szyk, czlondw w obrgbie form czirsupzeszlego i
trybu pnypuvczaj4cego. Wrodaw, Warsaw,Krakow: Ossolineum.
Sapir, Edward. 1921. I-angaage. An Introduction to the Study of Speech.
New York: Harcourt, Brace& World.
Timberlake,Alan. 1977. "Reanalysisand acrualizationin syntacticchange".
Mechanismsof SyntacticChangeed. by CharlesN. Li, l4l-180. Austin:
Universityof TexasPress.
Topolir{ska, Zvzanna. 1961. Z historii akcentupolskiego od wieku XVI do
dzi*. (= Pnce lgzykoznawcze, 27.) Wroclaw: Ossolineum.