Commentary published In:
Biological Evolution: More than a metaphor for grammar changeEdited by Maria Rita Manzini
[Evolutionary Linguistic Theory 3:1] 2021
► pp. 83–92
Edited by Maria Rita Manzini
[Evolutionary Linguistic Theory 3:1] 2021
► pp. 83–92
Response Paper
Variation in language use is different from variation in genes
Some comments on Haider’s model of grammar change
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).
Keywords: intentionality, teleology, usage-based models, diachronic typology
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)
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. 
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.
(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.
Croft, W. (1999). Adaptation,
optimality and diachrony. Zeitschrift für
Sprachwissenschaft 18(2): 206–208.
(2000). Explaining
language change. An evolutionary
approach. London: Longman.
(2003). Typology
and universals. 2nd
edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(2010). The
origins of grammaticalization in the verbalization of
experience. Linguistics 481: 1–48.
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.
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.
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.
Haiman, J. (1983). Iconic
and economic
motivation. Language 59(4): 781–819.
Haspelmath, M. (1998). The
semantic development of old presents: New futures and subjunctives without
grammaticalization. Diachronica 15(1): 29–62.
(1999). Optimality
and diachronic adaptation. Zeitschrift für
Sprachwissenschaft 18(2): 180–205.
(2008). A
frequentist explanation of some universals of reflexive marking. Linguistic
Discovery 6(1): 40–63.
(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.
(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.
Hawkins, J. (2004). Efficiency
and complexity in grammars. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Kurumada, Ch. & Jaeger, T. F. (2015). Communicative
efficiency in language production: Optional case-marking in Japanese. Journal of Memory and
Language 831: 152–178.
Maslova, E. (2000). A
dynamic approach to the verification of distributional universals. Linguistic
Typology 41: 307–333.
Matras, Y. (2020). Language
contact. 2nd edition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Nichols, J. (1992). Linguistic
diversity in space and time. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
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.
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.
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.