Formation of Analyticity in Language. Degradation or Development? (On the example of certain trends in the modern Georgian language)

The issue of the development of languages and their transformation from the synthetic, morphologically rich and multiform type to the analytic one, which may appear morphologically “simplified”, has always been extremely controversial in linguistic circles.

The representatives of the romantic trend in linguistics, such as Jacob and Wilhelm Grimms, Johann G. Herder and others held that the diachronic development of the Old Indo-European and Germanic languages and the process of their transformation into modern languages constituted in fact their decay and degradation. They saw the loss of the variety and richness of the grammatical forms, declension, and conjugation paradigms by these languages as a clear example of such degradation. If we compare the Anglo-Saxon (Old English) language with the modern English, or Latin with Italian, Old High German with the modern German, or Gothic (almost identical to Proto-Germanic) with, say, the modern Swedish language, we will clearly see what this approach of the Romanticists was based upon.

Otto Jespersen, a well-known Danish linguist on the other hand believed that the diachronic processes and changes occurring in languages represent in fact their improvement and progress and that the said processes cause the constant increase in the efficiency of language. It is believed that his views on the subject were also influenced by Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theories. Chapter XVII of Jespersen’s masterpiece “Language: Its Nature, Development, and Origin” is titled “Progress or Decay?”. The title of our proposed paper was inspired by this very chapter of Jespersen’s book and its general spirit.

The purpose of our paper itself is to discuss analytic constructions which have become quite abundant in the modern Georgian language, although the traditional Georgian linguistics either ignores them, or regards them as the violation of the set norms of the Georgian language, as calques or mistakes, trying hard to eradicate them. In our paper we will try to analyse, what linguistic or communicative circumstances necessitate the appearance and spread of such analytic constructions in languages generally and in the Georgian language in particular; we will also express our humble opinion as to whether such analytic trends in diachronic linguistic change constitute indeed the decay and degradation of languages, or, on the contrary, such development only make language more efficient and expressive and are caused by the necessity to clearly and understandably express one’s thoughts and ideas verbally.