Commentary published In: Biological Evolution: More than a metaphor for grammar change
Edited by Maria Rita Manzini
[Evolutionary Linguistic Theory 3:1] 2021
► pp. 93–108
Response Paper
On conceptualizing grammatical change in a Darwinian framework
A reply to Hubert Haider
Published online: 2 August 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/elt.00028.bre
https://doi.org/10.1075/elt.00028.bre
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.
Article outline
- 1.Introductory remarks
- 2.Haider’s historical misconceptions on biological evolutionary theory
- 3.Haider’s incorporation of punctuated equilibrium and discussion of “sub-theories”
- 4.Haider’s strict division between genotype, phenotype and selective environment
- 5.On the concept of stasis and the adaptiveness of language
- 6.Data of grammatical change not in line with Haider’s discussion
- 7.Haider’s notions of grammatical change and of the linguistic mental architecture
- 8.On Haider’s conception of diachronic grammar change as viral replication
- 9.Further thoughts on conceptualizing an evolutionary theory for language change
- 10.Summary and concluding remarks
References
References (35)
Arias-Trejo, N. & Plunkett, K. (2009): Lexical-semantic
priming effects during infancy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
B, 364(1536),3633–3647.
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.
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.
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.
Dawkins, R. (2006): The
blind watchmaker: Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without
design. London: Penguin Books.
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.
Eldredge, N. & Gould, S. J. (1972): Punctuated
equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism. In T. J. M. Schopf (Ed.), Models
in
paleobiology (pp. 82–115). San Francisco, CA: Freeman, Cooper & Company.
Ferrand, L. & New, B. (2003): Semantic
and associative priming in the mental lexicon. In P. Bonin (Ed.), Mental
lexicon: Some words to talk
about (pp. 25–43). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publisher.
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.
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.
Givón, T. (2009): The
genesis of syntactic complexity. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Gould, S. J. (2002): The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
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.
Jäger, G. (in
press): Can language evolution lead change for the worse? In D. W. Enke, L. M. Hyman, J. Nichols, G. Seiler & Th. Weber (Eds.), Language change for the worse. Berlin: Language Science Press. [[URL]]
Keeling, P. J. & Palmer, J. D. (2008): Horizontal
gene transfer in eukaryotic evolution. Nature Reviews
Genetics, 9(8), 605–618.
Leiss, E. (2000): Artikel
und Aspekt: Die grammatischen Muster von Definitheit. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.
(2010): Koverter
Abbau des Artikels im Deutschen. In D. Bittner & L. Gaeta (Eds.), Kodierungstechniken
im Wandel: Das Zusammenspiel von Analytik und Synthese im
Gegenwartsdeutschen (pp. 137–157). Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Leiss, E. & Abraham, W. (2020): The
weakness of the definite article in German. In M. Tanaka, T. Tsutsui & M. Hashimoto (Eds.), Linguistic
research as an interdisciplinary science. Festschrift für Mitsunobu
Yoshida (pp. 77–93). Tokyo: Hituzi Publishers.
Levinson, S. C. & Dediu, D. (2013): The
interplay of genetic and cultural factors in ongoing language
evolution. In P. J. Richerson & M. H. Christiansen (Eds.), Cultural
evolution. Society, technology, language, and
religion (pp. 219–232). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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.
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.
Ochman, H., Lawrence, J. G. & Groisman, E. A. (2000): Lateral
gene transfer and the nature of bacterial
innovation. Nature, 405(6784), 299–304.
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.
Sandler, W., Meir, I., Padden, C. & Aronoff, M. (2005): The
emergence of grammar: systematic structure in a new
language. PNAS, 102(7), 2661–2665.
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.
