Response Paper
On conceptualizing grammatical change in a Darwinian framework
A reply to Hubert Haider
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