Cover not available

Commentary published In: Biological Evolution: More than a metaphor for grammar change
Edited by Maria Rita Manzini
[Evolutionary Linguistic Theory 3:1] 2021
► pp. 83–92

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required
Response Paper

Variation in language use is different from variation in genes

Some comments on Haider’s model of grammar change

ORCiD logo with link | University of Insubria
Published online: 2 August 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/elt.00027.san
Abstract
This commentary discusses some aspects of Haider’s model of grammar change that are problematic from the perspective of usage-based approaches to language change. These aspects include (i) the postulated equivalence between intentionality and teleology, (ii) the metaphorical nature of Darwinism when applied to other domains, and (iii) the nature of explanations of language change. With respect to (i), it is argued that equating intentionality with teleology disregards the fact that innovation in grammar is not unprincipled like in genes. With respect to (ii), the question is whether a comparison between as different concepts as human behaviors/brains and genes/populations can be considered as more than a metaphor (however powerful). Finally, with respect to (iii), a number of diachronic-typological studies are discussed that concur to suggest that variation in speakers’ verbal productions is largely adaptive, and therefore selection operates on a skewed pool of variants in which non-adaptive/dysfunctional variants are a minority (if any).
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Intentionality is not teleology
  • 3.Darwinism as a metaphor
  • 4.Explaining generalizations from a diachronic-typological perspective
  • Note
  • References
References (25)
References
Bickel, B., Witzlack-Makarevich, A., Choudhary, K. K., Schlesewsky, M., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2015). The neurophysiology of language processing shapes the evolution of grammar: Evidence from case marking. PLoS ONE 10(8): e0132819. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cristofaro, S. (2014). Competing motivation models and diachrony: What evidence for what motivations? In B. Mac Whinney, A. L. Malchukov & E. A. Moravcsik (eds.), Competing motivations in grammar and usage (pp. 282–298). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Taking diachronic evidence seriously. Result-oriented vs. source-oriented explanations of typological universals. In K. Schmidtke-Bode, N. Levshina, S. Michaelis & I. A. Seržant (Eds.), Explanation in typology: Diachronic source, functional motivations and the nature of the evidence (pp. 25–46). Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. (1999). Adaptation, optimality and diachrony. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 18(2): 206–208. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000). Explaining language change. An evolutionary approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Typology and universals. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). The origins of grammaticalization in the verbalization of experience. Linguistics 481: 1–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Daniel, M. (2010). Linguistic typology and the study of language. In J. Jung Song (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology (pp. 50–65). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evans, N. & Levinson, S. C. (2009). The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 321: 429–492. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S., Chee, So W., Özyürek, A., & Mylander, C. (2008). The natural order of events: How speakers of different languages represent events nonverbally. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 1051: 9163–9168. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haiman, J. (1983). Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59(4): 781–819. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). Optimality and diachronic adaptation. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 18(2): 180–205. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). A frequentist explanation of some universals of reflexive marking. Linguistic Discovery 6(1): 40–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). On system pressure competing with economic motivation. In B. MacWhinney, A. L. Malchukov & E. A. Moravcsik (Eds.), Competing motivations in grammar and usage (pp. 197–208). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Can cross-linguistic regularities be explained by constraints on change? In K. Schmidtke-Bode, N. Levshina, S. Michaelis & I. A. Seržant (eds.), Explanation in typology: Diachronic source, functional motivations and the nature of the evidence (pp. 1–23). Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kurumada, Ch. & Jaeger, T. F. (2015). Communicative efficiency in language production: Optional case-marking in Japanese. Journal of Memory and Language 831: 152–178. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maslova, E. (2000). A dynamic approach to the verification of distributional universals. Linguistic Typology 41: 307–333. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matras, Y. (2020). Language contact. 2nd edition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moravcsik, E. A. (2010). Explaining language universals. In J. Jung Song (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology (pp. 66–83). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nichols, J. (1992). Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmidtke-Bode, K. (2019). Attractor states and diachronic change in Hawkins’s “Processing Typology”. In K. Schmidtke-Bode, N. Levshina, S. Michaelis & I. A. Seržant (Eds.), Explanation in typology: Diachronic source, functional motivations and the nature of the evidence (pp. 123–148). Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmidtke-Bode, K. & Grossman, E. (2019). Diachronic sources, functional motivations and the nature of the evidence: A synthesis. In K. Schmidtke-Bode, N. Levshina, S. Michaelis & I. A. Seržant (Eds.), Explanation in typology: Diachronic source, functional motivations and the nature of the evidence (pp. 223–241). Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Seržant, I. A. & Rafiyenko, D. (2020). Diachronic evidence against source-oriented explanation in typology. Evolution of prepositional phrases in Ancient Greek. Language Dynamics and Change, 11(2), 167–210.   Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue