1887
Volume 3, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2589-1588
  • E-ISSN: 2589-1596
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Haider’s target paper presents a fresh and inspiring look at the nature of grammar change. The overall impression of his approach is very convincing, especially his insistence on the point that language was not selected for communication – hence it is no adaptation to communicative use. Nevertheless, I think three topics are in need of further discussion and elaboration. First, I will discuss the question whether Haider’s conception of Darwinian selection covers all aspects of grammar change. Second, I will consider the question of whether an approach that dispenses with UG (as Haider’s does) can explain why grammars are the way they are. Third, I will question Haider’s equation of grammar with the genotype and of speech with the phenotype and develop an alternative and more appropriate proposal where, among others, speech corresponds to behavior.

Comment

This is a commentary article in response to the following content:
Grammar change
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/elt.00026.wei
2021-08-02
2021-12-03
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Croft, W.
    (1996) Linguistic Selection: An Utterance-based Evolutionary Theory of Language Change. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 19, 99–139. 10.1017/S0332586500003358
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586500003358 [Google Scholar]
  2. (2010) The origins of grammaticalization in the verbalization of experience. Linguistics, 48(1), 1–48. 10.1515/ling.2010.001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2010.001 [Google Scholar]
  3. De Smet, H.
    (2009) Analysing reanalysis. Lingua, 119, 1728–1755. 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.03.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  4. Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & W. T. Fitch
    (2002) The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve?Science, 298(5598), 1569–1579. 10.1126/science.298.5598.1569
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.298.5598.1569 [Google Scholar]
  5. Jäger, A.
    (2018) Vergleichskonstruktionen im Deutschen. Diachroner Wandel und synchrone Variation. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110561234
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110561234 [Google Scholar]
  6. Lasnik, H., & Sobin, N.
    (2000) The WHO/WHOM puzzle: the preservation of an archaic feature. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 18, 343–371. 10.1023/A:1006322600501
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006322600501 [Google Scholar]
  7. Narrog, H., & Heine, B.
    (2011) Introduction. InH. Narrog & B. Heine (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, (pp.1–18). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Pinker, St., & Bloom, P.
    (1990) Natural language and natural selection. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 13, 707–784. 10.1017/S0140525X00081061
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00081061 [Google Scholar]
  9. Sobin, N.
    (1997) Agreement, default rules, and grammatical viruses. Linguistic Inquiry, 28, 318–343.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Tomasello, M.
    (2003) On the Different Origins of Symbols and Grammar. InM. H. Christiansen and S. Kirby (Eds.), Language Evolution (pp.94–110). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199244843.003.0006
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199244843.003.0006 [Google Scholar]
  11. van Gelderen, E.
    (2004) Grammaticalization as Economy. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/la.71
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.71 [Google Scholar]
  12. Weiß, H.
    (2001) On two Types of Natural Languages. Some Consequences for Linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics, 27, 87–103. 10.1515/thli.2001.27.1.87
    https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2001.27.1.87 [Google Scholar]
  13. (2004) A Question of Relevance. Some Remarks on Standard Languages. Studies in Language, 28(3), 648–674, 680–681 [Special Issue: M. Penke and A. Rosenbach (Eds.), What counts as Evidence in Linguistics? The case of Innateness.]. 10.1075/sl.28.3.15wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.28.3.15wei [Google Scholar]
  14. (2005) Von den vier Lebensaltern einer Standardsprache. Zur Rolle von Spracherwerb und Medialität. Deutsche Sprache, 33, 289–307. 10.37307/j.1868‑775X.2005.04.02
    https://doi.org/10.37307/j.1868-775X.2005.04.02 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2009) How to Define Dialect and Language – A Proposal for Further Discussion. Linguistische Berichte, 219, 251–270.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. (2019) Rebracketing (Gliederungsverschiebung) and the Early Merge Prinicple. Diachronica, 36(4), 509–545. doi:  10.1075/dia.00015.wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.00015.wei [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/elt.00026.wei
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/elt.00026.wei
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Article Commentary
Keyword(s): Darwinian selection; grammaticalization; language change; UG
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error