1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Evolutionary Linguistic Theory
  4. Volume 3, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 3, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2589-1588
  • E-ISSN: 2589-1596
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Approaching language change within a Darwinian framework constitutes a long-standing tradition within the literature of diachronic linguistics. However, many publications remain vague, omitting conceptual details or missing necessary terminology. For example, phylogenetic trees of language families are regularly compared to biological speciation, but definitions on mechanisms of inheritance, i.e. how linguistic information is transferred between individuals and cohorts, or on the linguistic correlates to genotype and phenotype are often missing or lacking. In light of this, Haider’s attempts to develop this approach into a theoretically more precise position, closely mirroring principles of Darwinian natural selection in the dimension of diachronic grammatical change, but contrasting this with non-Darwinian lexical change. He draws a comparison to viral replication, essentially positing that grammar variants act as mental viruses, competing for replication in new hosts, i.e. children during critical periods of language acquisition. Haider proposes that in light of this competition for replication, the unconscious fixation of an individual’s grammar leads to diachronic grammatical change largely mirroring Darwinian natural selection. Despite the intuitive appeal this mode of reasoning may feature, the following response paper identifies and discusses a suit of shortcomings to this conceptualization. Some problems arise from underspecified theoretical notions, others due to the incomplete or inaccurate adoption of biological principles, and yet more through a partial incompatibility with empirical data. These criticisms do not amount to a dismissal of the Darwinian framework Haider is following, but to a rejection of Haider’s current position. Albeit it remains unclear if a truly Darwinian approach to language change can be reached, suggestions on how Haider’s theoretical notions could be further developed are made and pertinent efforts may ultimately lead to a productive theory.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company

Comment

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

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/elt.00028.bre
2021-08-02
2025-04-30

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/elt.00028.bre
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arias-Trejo, N. & Plunkett, K.
    (2009): Lexical-semantic priming effects during infancy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364(1536),3633–3647. doi:  10.1098/rstb.2009.0146
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0146 [Google Scholar]
  2. Axelsen, J. B. & Manrubia, S.
    (2014): River density and landscape roughness are universal determinants of linguistic diversity. Proceedings of the Royal Society Biology, 281(1788), Article 20133029. doi:  10.1098/rspb.2013.3029
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.3029 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bentz, C., Dediu, D., Verkerk, A. & Jäger, G.
    (2018): The evolution of language families is shaped by the environment beyond neutral drift. Nature Human Behavior, 2(11), 816–831. doi:  10.1038/s41562‑018‑0457‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0457-6 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bickerton, D.
    (1983): Creole languages. Scientific American, 249(1), 116–123. doi:  10.1038/scientificamerican0783‑116
     https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0783-116 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2014): More than nature needs: Language, mind, and evolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 10.4159/9780674728523
     https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674728523 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bybee, J., Perkins, R. & Pagliuca, W.
    (1994): The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Darwin, C.
    (1868): The variation of animals and plants under domestication. London: John Murray.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. (1871): The descent of man, and delection in relation to sex. London: John Murray.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Dawkins, R.
    (2006): The blind watchmaker: Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design. London: Penguin Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Dediu, D. & Ladd, R.
    (2007): Linguistic tone is related to the population frequency of the adaptive haplogroups of two brain size genes, ASPM and Microcephalin. PNAS, 104(26), 10944–10949. doi:  10.1073/pnas.0610848104
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0610848104 [Google Scholar]
  11. Eldredge, N. & Gould, S. J.
    (1972): Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism. InT. J. M. Schopf (Ed.), Models in paleobiology (pp.82–115). San Francisco, CA: Freeman, Cooper & Company.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Ferrand, L. & New, B.
    (2003): Semantic and associative priming in the mental lexicon. InP. Bonin (Ed.), Mental lexicon: Some words to talk about (pp.25–43). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publisher.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Gavin, M. C., Botero, C. A., Bowern, C., Colwell, R. K., Dunn, M., Gray, D. R., Kirby, K. R., McCarter, J., Powell, A., Rangel, Th. F., Stepp, J. R., Trautwein, M., Verdolin, J. L., Yanega, G.
    (2013): Towards a mechanistic understanding of linguistic diversity. Bioscience, 63(7), 524–535. doi:  10.1525/bio.2013.63.7.6
     https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2013.63.7.6 [Google Scholar]
  14. Gavin, M. C., Rangel, T. F., Bowern, C., Colwell, R. K., Kirby, K. R., Botero, C. A., Dunn, M., Dunn, R. R., McCarter, J., Pacheco Coelho, M. T., Gray, R. D.
    (2017): Process-based modelling shows how climate and demography shape language diversity. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 26(5), 584–591. doi:  10.1111/geb.12563
     https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12563 [Google Scholar]
  15. Givón, T.
    (2009): The genesis of syntactic complexity. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/z.146
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.146 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gould, S. J.
    (2002): The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 10.2307/j.ctvjsf433
     https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjsf433 [Google Scholar]
  17. Greenhill, S. J., Wu, C.-H., Dunn, M., Levinson, S. C. & Gray, R. D.
    (2017): Evolutionary dynamics of language systems. PNAS, 114(42), E8822–E8829. doi:  10.1073/pnas.1700388114
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1700388114 [Google Scholar]
  18. Jäger, G.
    (in press): Can language evolution lead change for the worse?InD. W. Enke, L. M. Hyman, J. Nichols, G. Seiler & Th. Weber Eds. Language change for the worse. Berlin: Language Science Press. [https://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/292]
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Keeling, P. J. & Palmer, J. D.
    (2008): Horizontal gene transfer in eukaryotic evolution. Nature Reviews Genetics, 9(8), 605–618. doi:  10.1038/nrg2386
     https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2386 [Google Scholar]
  20. Leiss, E.
    (2000): Artikel und Aspekt: Die grammatischen Muster von Definitheit. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110825961
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110825961 [Google Scholar]
  21. (2010): Koverter Abbau des Artikels im Deutschen. InD. Bittner & L. Gaeta (Eds.), Kodierungstechniken im Wandel: Das Zusammenspiel von Analytik und Synthese im Gegenwartsdeutschen (pp.137–157). Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110228458.137
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110228458.137 [Google Scholar]
  22. Leiss, E. & Abraham, W.
    (2020): The weakness of the definite article in German. InM. Tanaka, T. Tsutsui & M. Hashimoto (Eds.), Linguistic research as an interdisciplinary science. Festschrift für Mitsunobu Yoshida (pp.77–93). Tokyo: Hituzi Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Levinson, S. C. & Dediu, D.
    (2013): The interplay of genetic and cultural factors in ongoing language evolution. InP. J. Richerson & M. H. Christiansen (Eds.), Cultural evolution. Society, technology, language, and religion (pp.219–232). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262019750.003.0012
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262019750.003.0012 [Google Scholar]
  24. Levinson, S. C. & Gray, R. D.
    (2012): Tools from evolutionary biology shed light on the diversification of languages. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(3), 167–173. doi:  10.1016/j.tics.2012.01.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.01.007 [Google Scholar]
  25. Mayr, E.
    (1972): Lamarck revisited. Journal of the History of Biology, 5(1), 66–94. 10.1007/BF02113486
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02113486 [Google Scholar]
  26. Mikołajczak-Matyja, N.
    (2015): The associative structure of the mental lexicon: hierarchical semantic relations in the minds of blind and sighted language users. Psychology of Language and Communication, 19(1), 1–18. doi:  10.1515/plc‑2015‑0001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/plc-2015-0001 [Google Scholar]
  27. Ochman, H., Lawrence, J. G. & Groisman, E. A.
    (2000): Lateral gene transfer and the nature of bacterial innovation. Nature, 405(6784), 299–304. doi:  10.1038/35012500
     https://doi.org/10.1038/35012500 [Google Scholar]
  28. Rämä, P., Sirri, L. & Serres, J.
    (2013): Development of lexical-semantic language system: N400 priming effect for spoken words in 18- and 24-month old children. Brain and Language, 125(1), 1–10. doi:  10.1016/j.bandl.2013.01.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2013.01.009 [Google Scholar]
  29. Sandler, W., Meir, I., Padden, C. & Aronoff, M.
    (2005): The emergence of grammar: systematic structure in a new language. PNAS, 102(7), 2661–2665. doi:  10.1073/pnas.0405448102
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0405448102 [Google Scholar]
  30. Sapolsky, R.
    (2017): Behave. The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst. London: Penguin Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Senghas, A., Kita, S. & Ozyürek, A.
    (2004): Children creating core properties of language: evidence from an emerging sign language in Nicaragua. Science, 305(5691), 1779–1782. doi:  10.1126/science.1100199
     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1100199 [Google Scholar]
  32. Shaumyan, S.
    (1987): A semiotic theory of language. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Sterelny, K.
    (2007): Dawkins vs. Gould. Survival of the fittest. London: Icon Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Ullman, M. T.
    (2001): A neurocognitive perspective on language: The declarative/procedural model. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2(10), 717–726. doi:  10.1038/35094573
     https://doi.org/10.1038/35094573 [Google Scholar]
  35. Wong, P. C. M., Chandrasekaran, B. & Zheng, J.
    (2012): The derived allele of ASPM is associated with lexical tone perception. PLOS ONE, 7(4), e34243. doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0034243
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0034243 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/elt.00028.bre
Loading
  • Article Type: Article Commentary
Keyword(s): diachronic change; evolutionary theory; grammatical change; mental lexicon; universal Darwinism

Most Cited

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