Do languages die of ‘structuritis’? On the role of code-copying in language endangerment

When languages cease to exist, the decisive factors are social in nature. The processes may be accompanied by what is called extensive ‘borrowing’ and ‘simplification’. Structural phenomena of these kinds are, however, sometimes viewed as the very reasons for decay and death. Languages displaying these ‘corruptions’ are thought to demolish themselves and to destroy their own identity. But the phenomena in question are neither unique to ‘language death’, nor are they unequivocal signs foreboding it. The structural development itself does not necessarily contribute to the endangerment. There is no empirical evidence for language shifts through gradual structural development. It would indeed be impossible for foreign structures to enter into a linguistic code and infect it with ‘structuritis’. Ideas of this kind are the logical consequence of viewing contact-induced influence as ‘borrowing’ or ‘import’ of elements from one code to another. According to the Code-Copying Framework, however, elements inserted into a given contact-affected code are not taken to be identical with the originals, but just copies of them. Due to the necessary accommodation of the copies, even typologically highly different elements may be incorporated. Languages do not cease to exist for structural reasons, but because they are no longer acquired by new generations. Even considerable degrees of structural change do not prevent them from being passed on. Languages do not die of ‘structuritis’.*