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. 93–108
Response Paper

On conceptualizing grammatical change in a Darwinian framework

A reply to Hubert Haider

| Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich
| Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich

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.

Keywords: evolutionary theory, universal Darwinism, grammatical change, diachronic change, mental lexicon
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
Published online: 2 August 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/elt.00028.bre
References
Arias-Trejo, N. & Plunkett, K.
(2009): Lexical-semantic priming effects during infancy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364(1536),3633–3647. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, D.
(1983): Creole languages. Scientific American, 249(1), 116–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014): More than nature needs: Language, mind, and evolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Darwin, C.
(1868): The variation of animals and plants under domestication. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
(1871): The descent of man, and delection in relation to sex. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R.
(2006): The blind watchmaker: Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T.
(2009): The genesis of syntactic complexity. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. J.
(2002): The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leiss, E.
(2000): Artikel und Aspekt: Die grammatischen Muster von Definitheit. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E.
(1972): Lamarck revisited. Journal of the History of Biology, 5(1), 66–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ochman, H., Lawrence, J. G. & Groisman, E. A.
(2000): Lateral gene transfer and the nature of bacterial innovation. Nature, 405(6784), 299–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandler, W., Meir, I., Padden, C. & Aronoff, M.
(2005): The emergence of grammar: systematic structure in a new language. PNAS, 102(7), 2661–2665. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sapolsky, R.
(2017): Behave. The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shaumyan, S.
(1987): A semiotic theory of language. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Sterelny, K.
(2007): Dawkins vs. Gould. Survival of the fittest. London: Icon Books.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. T.
(2001): A neurocognitive perspective on language: The declarative/procedural model. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2(10), 717–726. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wong, P. C. M., Chandrasekaran, B. & Zheng, J.
(2012): The derived allele of ASPM is associated with lexical tone perception. PLOS ONE, 7(4), e34243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar