{"title":"On conceptualizing grammatical change in a Darwinian framework","authors":"Michael Breyl, E. Leiss","doi":"10.1075/elt.00028.bre","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Approaching language change within a Darwinian framework constitutes a long-standing tradition within the\n literature of diachronic linguistics. However, many publications remain vague, omitting conceptual details or missing necessary\n terminology. For example, phylogenetic trees of language families are regularly compared to biological speciation, but definitions\n on mechanisms of inheritance, i.e. how linguistic information is transferred between individuals and cohorts, or on the linguistic\n correlates to genotype and phenotype are often missing or lacking. In light of this, Haider’s attempts to develop this\n approach into a theoretically more precise position, closely mirroring principles of Darwinian natural selection in the dimension\n of diachronic grammatical change, but contrasting this with non-Darwinian lexical change. He draws a comparison to viral\n replication, essentially positing that grammar variants act as mental viruses, competing for replication in new hosts, i.e.\n children during critical periods of language acquisition. Haider proposes that in light of this competition for replication, the\n unconscious fixation of an individual’s grammar leads to diachronic grammatical change largely mirroring Darwinian natural\n selection. Despite the intuitive appeal this mode of reasoning may feature, the following response paper identifies and discusses\n a suit of shortcomings to this conceptualization. Some problems arise from underspecified theoretical notions, others due to the\n incomplete or inaccurate adoption of biological principles, and yet more through a partial incompatibility with empirical data.\n These criticisms do not amount to a dismissal of the Darwinian framework Haider is following, but to a rejection of Haider’s\n current position. Albeit it remains unclear if a truly Darwinian approach to language change can be reached, suggestions on how\n Haider’s theoretical notions could be further developed are made and pertinent efforts may ultimately lead to a productive\n theory.","PeriodicalId":412351,"journal":{"name":"Biological Evolution","volume":"204 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biological Evolution","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/elt.00028.bre","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
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.