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. 73–82
Response Paper

Darwinian language evolution

Remarks on Haider’s Grammar change

| Goethe University of Frankfurt

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
Published online: 2 August 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/elt.00026.wei
References
Croft, W.
(1996) Linguistic Selection: An Utterance-based Evolutionary Theory of Language Change. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 191, 99–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) The origins of grammaticalization in the verbalization of experience. Linguistics, 48(1), 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H.
(2009) Analysing reanalysis. Lingua, 1191, 1728–1755. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jäger, A.
(2018) Vergleichskonstruktionen im Deutschen. Diachroner Wandel und synchrone Variation. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, H., & Sobin, N.
(2000) The WHO/WHOM puzzle: the preservation of an archaic feature. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 181, 343–371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Pinker, St., & Bloom, P.
(1990) Natural language and natural selection. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 131, 707–784. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sobin, N.
(1997) Agreement, default rules, and grammatical viruses. Linguistic Inquiry, 281, 318–343.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, E.
(2004) Grammaticalization as Economy. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weiß, H.
(2001) On two Types of Natural Languages. Some Consequences for Linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics, 271, 87–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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.]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005) Von den vier Lebensaltern einer Standardsprache. Zur Rolle von Spracherwerb und Medialität. Deutsche Sprache, 331, 289–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) How to Define Dialect and Language – A Proposal for Further Discussion. Linguistische Berichte, 2191, 251–270.Google Scholar
(2019) Rebracketing (Gliederungsverschiebung) and the Early Merge Prinicple. Diachronica, 36(4), 509–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar