From: Patrick C. Ryan
Message: 26289
Date: 2003-10-08
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Rader" <jrader@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Glen, regarding...
> >
> > <PCR>
> > Evolution is still understood as a process in which random changes,
> > which have survival value, are maintained.
> >
> > There are many examples of living things like, for instance, the
> > crocodile, which apparently have not changed much over great periods
> > of time. Should there not also be languages which have remained the
> > same over great periods of time? And if not, why not?
> >
> > Let us take an example of phonological change which is quite commonly
> > observed, the change of (aspirated) stops into their equivalent
> > spirants, for example /p(H)/ into /f/.
> >
> > Presumably, in your evolutionary scenario, a segment of a language
> > population would incorrectly repliacte /p(H)/, and this would
> > eventually spread to the larger language population. What 'survival
> > value' could possibly be attributed to this change?
> >
>
> Biological evolution and language change are both characterized by
> variability, but beyond that the analogy is tenuous. Why would
> language change have to be adaptive to an environment or
> characterized by natural selection? Why does it have to possess
> "survival value"?
<PCR> Well, first, let us be reminded that it was Piotr who introduced the idea of evolution in the discussion.
I do not subscribe to that idea. I was merely responding to Piotr's words.
My own view is, as a hypothesis, to seek to explain phonological changes are a result of changing gene frequencies in the population speaking the language.
>
> I think Meillet gave the best answer to the "why" of linguistic change a
> long time ago (1906):
>
> "From the fact that language is a social institution, it follows that
> linguistics is a social science, and the only variable element that we
> can resort to in accounting for linguistic change is social change,
<PCR> In my opinion, "social change" can best be understood as reflecting changes in genetic composition. I have no doubt that when, in certain US states, a certain critical mass of Latinos is achieved, power will shift to this group, and changes in the English phonology there will ensue, although national communications media will slow and somewhat inhibit them.
of
> which linguistic variations are only consequences, sometimes
> immediate and direct, more often mediated and indirect...We must
> determine which social structure corresponds to a given linguistic
> structure, and how in general changes in social structure are translated
> into changes in linguistic structure."
>
> The work I've taken this quote from, Labov's _Principles of Linguistic
> Change, vol. 2: Social Factors_ attempts--to a limited degree--to do
> just this, i.e, correlate contemporary linguistic change in the U.S.
> (mainly) with social variables. Of course, it's one thing to examine
> sound shifts in modern communities which can be subjected to fine-
> grained sociolinguistic analysis, and quite another to understand
> language change that took place centuries ago. We still have a
> primitive understanding of what constitutes "changes in social
> structure" that might be universally relevant to speech communities,
> beyond very obvious historical factors like migration or conquest.
<PCR> By recognizing "migration or conquest", we are again looking at genetic factors, are we not?
> Jim Rader
Pat
PATRICK C. RYAN | PROTO-LANGUAGE@... (501) 227-9947 * 9115 W. 34th St. Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES: PROTO-LANGUAGE: http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/ and PROTO-RELIGION: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/proto-religion/indexR.html "Veit ec at ec hecc, vindgá meiði a netr allar nío, geiri vndaþr . . . a þeim meiþi, er mangi veit, hvers hann af rótom renn." (Hávamál 138)