Commentary published In: Biological Evolution: More than a metaphor for grammar change
Edited by Maria Rita Manzini
[Evolutionary Linguistic Theory 3:1] 2021
► pp. 73–82
Response Paper
Darwinian language evolution
Remarks on Haider’s Grammar change
Published online: 2 August 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/elt.00026.wei
https://doi.org/10.1075/elt.00026.wei
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.
Keywords: UG, grammaticalization, language change, Darwinian selection
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Darwinian language evolution
- 3.Grammar evolution without UG
- 4.What are the linguistic correlates of genotype and phenotype?
- 5.Summary
- Notes
References
References (16)
Croft, W. (1996). Linguistic Selection: An Utterance-based Evolutionary Theory of Language Change. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 191, 99–139.
(2010). The origins of grammaticalization in the verbalization of experience. Linguistics, 48(1), 1–48.
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.
Jäger, A. (2018). Vergleichskonstruktionen im Deutschen. Diachroner Wandel und synchrone Variation. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.
Lasnik, H., & Sobin, N. (2000). The WHO/WHOM puzzle: the preservation of an archaic feature. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 181, 343–371.
Narrog, H., & Heine, B. (2011). Introduction. In H. Narrog & B. Heine (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, (pp. 1–18). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Pinker, St., & Bloom, P. (1990). Natural language and natural selection. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 131, 707–784.
Sobin, N. (1997). Agreement, default rules, and grammatical viruses. Linguistic Inquiry, 281, 318–343.
Tomasello, M. (2003). On the Different Origins of Symbols and Grammar. In M. H. Christiansen and S. Kirby (Eds.), Language Evolution (pp. 94–110). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
van Gelderen, E. (2004). Grammaticalization as Economy. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Weiß, H. (2001). On two Types of Natural Languages. Some Consequences for Linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics, 271, 87–103.
(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.].
(2005). Von den vier Lebensaltern einer Standardsprache. Zur Rolle von Spracherwerb und Medialität. Deutsche Sprache, 331, 289–307.
(2009). How to Define Dialect and Language – A Proposal for Further Discussion. Linguistische Berichte, 2191, 251–270.
(2019). Rebracketing (Gliederungsverschiebung) and the Early Merge Prinicple. Diachronica, 36(4), 509–545.