Evolutionary linguistics

Template:Short description Template:Distinguish Template:Sidebar with collapsible lists Template:Sidebar with collapsible lists

Evolutionary linguistics or Darwinian linguistics is a sociobiological approach to the study of language.<ref name=Gontier_2012>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref name=McMahon&McMahon_2012>Template:Cite book</ref> Evolutionary linguists consider linguistics as a subfield of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. The approach is also closely linked with evolutionary anthropology, cognitive linguistics and biolinguistics. Studying languages as the products of nature, it is interested in the biological origin and development of language.<ref name=Croft_2008>Template:Cite journal</ref> Evolutionary linguistics is contrasted with humanistic approaches, especially structural linguistics.<ref name=Croft_1993>Template:Cite journal</ref>

A main challenge in this research is the lack of empirical data: there are no archaeological traces of early human language. Computational biological modelling and clinical research with artificial languages have been employed to fill in gaps of knowledge. Although biology is understood to shape the brain, which processes language, there is no clear link between biology and specific human language structures or linguistic universals.<ref name=Gibson&Tallerman_2011>Template:Cite book</ref>

For lack of a breakthrough in the field, there have been numerous debates about what kind of natural phenomenon language might be. Some researchers focus on the innate aspects of language. It is suggested that grammar has emerged adaptationally from the human genome, bringing about a language instinct;<ref name="Pinker_1994">Template:Cite book</ref> or that it depends on a single mutation<ref name="Berwick&Chomsky_2015">Template:Cite book</ref> which has caused a language organ to appear in the human brain.<ref name="Anderson&Lightfoot_2002">Template:Cite book</ref> This is hypothesized to result in a crystalline<ref name="Chomsky_2015">Template:Cite book</ref> grammatical structure underlying all human languages. Others suggest language is not crystallized, but fluid and ever-changing.<ref name="Bybee&Beckner_2015">Template:Cite book</ref> Others, yet, liken languages to living organisms.<ref name=VanDriem_2005>Template:Cite book</ref> Languages are considered analogous to a parasite<ref name=Hung_2019>Template:Cite journal</ref> or populations of mind-viruses. There is so far little scientific evidence for any of these claims, and some of them have been labelled as pseudoscience.<ref name=Schwarz-Friesel_2012>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref name=Polichak_2002>Template:Cite book</ref>

HistoryEdit

1863–1945: social DarwinismEdit

Although pre-Darwinian theorists had compared languages to living organisms as a metaphor, the comparison was first taken literally in 1863 by the historical linguist August Schleicher who was inspired by Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species.<ref name=Stamos_2006>Template:Cite book</ref> At the time there was not enough evidence to prove that Darwin's theory of natural selection was correct. Schleicher proposed that linguistics could be used as a testing ground for the study of the evolution of species.<ref name=Aronoff_2017>Template:Cite book</ref> A review of Schleicher's book Darwinism as Tested by the Science of Language appeared in the first issue of Nature journal in 1870.<ref name=Müller_1870>Template:Cite journal</ref> Darwin reiterated Schleicher's proposition in his 1871 book The Descent of Man, claiming that languages are comparable to species, and that language change occurs through natural selection as words 'struggle for life'. Darwin believed that languages had evolved from animal mating calls.<ref name=Darwin_1871>Template:Cite book</ref> Darwinists considered the concept of language creation as unscientific.<ref name=Darwin_1863>Template:Cite book</ref>

August Schleicher and his friend Ernst Haeckel were keen gardeners and regarded the study of cultures as a type of botany, with different species competing for the same living space.<ref name=Richards_2002>Template:Cite book</ref><ref name=Aronoff_2017 /> Similar ideas became later advocated by politicians who wanted to appeal to working class voters, not least by the national socialists who subsequently included the concept of struggle for living space in their agenda.<ref name=Richards_2013>Template:Cite book</ref> Highly influential until the end of World War II, social Darwinism was eventually banished from human sciences, leading to a strict separation of natural and sociocultural studies.<ref name=Aronoff_2017 />

This gave rise to the dominance of structural linguistics in Europe. There had long been a dispute between the Darwinists and the French intellectuals with the topic of language evolution famously having been banned by the Paris Linguistic Society as early as in 1866. Ferdinand de Saussure proposed structuralism to replace evolutionary linguistics in his Course in General Linguistics, published posthumously in 1916. The structuralists rose to academic political power in human and social sciences in the aftermath of the student revolts of Spring 1968, establishing Sorbonne as an international centrepoint of humanistic thinking.

From 1959 onwards: genetic determinismEdit

In the United States, structuralism was however fended off by the advocates of behavioural psychology; a linguistics framework nicknamed as 'American structuralism'. It was eventually replaced by the approach of Noam Chomsky who published a modification of Louis Hjelmslev's formal structuralist theory, claiming that syntactic structures are innate. An active figure in peace demonstrations in the 1950s and 1960s, Chomsky rose to academic political power following Spring 1968 at the MIT.<ref name=Smith_2002>Template:Cite book</ref>

Chomsky became an influential opponent of the French intellectuals during the following decades, and his supporters successfully confronted the post-structuralists in the Science Wars of the late 1990s.<ref name=Bricmont&Franck_2010>Template:Cite book</ref> The shift of the century saw a new academic funding policy where interdisciplinary research became favoured, effectively directing research funds to biological humanities.<ref name=Rhoten_2016>Template:Cite journal</ref> The decline of structuralism was evident by 2015 with Sorbonne having lost its former spirit.<ref name=Hazareesingh_2015>Template:Cite journal</ref>

Chomsky eventually claimed that syntactic structures are caused by a random mutation in the human genome,<ref name=Berwick&Chomsky_2015/> proposing a similar explanation for other human faculties such as ethics.<ref name=Smith_2002 /> But Steven Pinker argued in 1990 that they are the outcome of evolutionary adaptations.<ref name="Pinker Bloom 2011">Template:Cite journal</ref>

From 1976 onwards: Neo-DarwinismEdit

At the same time when the Chomskyan paradigm of biological determinism defeated humanism, it was losing its own clout within sociobiology. It was reported likewise in 2015 that generative grammar was under fire in applied linguistics and in the process of being replaced with usage-based linguistics;<ref name=DeBot_2015>Template:Cite book</ref> a derivative of Richard Dawkins's memetics.<ref name=Boesch&Tomasello_1998>Template:Cite journal</ref> It is a concept of linguistic units as replicators. Following the publication of memetics in Dawkins's 1976 nonfiction bestseller The Selfish Gene, many biologically inclined linguists, frustrated with the lack of evidence for Chomsky's Universal Grammar, grouped under different brands including a framework called Cognitive Linguistics (with capitalised initials), and 'functional' (adaptational) linguistics (not to be confused with functional linguistics) to confront both Chomsky and the humanists.<ref name=Croft_1993 /> The replicator approach is today dominant in evolutionary linguistics, applied linguistics, cognitive linguistics and linguistic typology; while the generative approach has maintained its position in general linguistics, especially syntax; and in computational linguistics.

View of linguisticsEdit

Evolutionary linguistics is part of a wider framework of Universal Darwinism. In this view, linguistics is seen as an ecological environment for research traditions struggling for the same resources.<ref name=Croft_1993 /> According to David Hull, these traditions correspond to species in biology. Relationships between research traditions can be symbiotic, competitive or parasitic. An adaptation of Hull's theory in linguistics is proposed by William Croft.<ref name=Croft_2008 /> He argues that the Darwinian method is more advantageous than linguistic models based on physics, structuralist sociology, or hermeneutics.<ref name=Croft_1993 />

ApproachesEdit

Evolutionary linguistics is often divided into functionalism and formalism,<ref name=Darnell_1999>Template:Cite book</ref> concepts which are not to be confused with functionalism and formalism in the humanistic reference.<ref name=Croft_2015>Template:Cite book</ref> Functional evolutionary linguistics considers languages as adaptations to human mind. The formalist view regards them as crystallised or non-adaptational.<ref name=Darnell_1999 />

Functionalism (adaptationism)Edit

The adaptational view of language is advocated by various frameworks of cognitive and evolutionary linguistics, with the terms 'functionalism' and 'Cognitive Linguistics' often being equated.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> It is hypothesised that the evolution of the animal brain provides humans with a mechanism of abstract reasoning which is a 'metaphorical' version of image-based reasoning.<ref name="Lakoff_1990">Template:Cite journal</ref> Language is not considered as a separate area of cognition, but as coinciding with general cognitive capacities, such as perception, attention, motor skills, and spatial and visual processing. It is argued to function according to the same principles as these.<ref name="Croft&Cruse_2004">Template:Cite book</ref><ref name="Geeraerts_2006">Template:Cite book</ref>

It is thought that the brain links action schemes to form–meaning pairs which are called constructions.<ref name="Arbib_2015">Template:Cite book</ref> Cognitive linguistic approaches to syntax are called cognitive and construction grammar.<ref name="Croft&Cruse_2004" /> Also deriving from memetics and other cultural replicator theories,<ref name=Croft_2008 /> these can study the natural or social selection and adaptation of linguistic units. Adaptational models reject a formal systemic view of language and consider language as a population of linguistic units.

The bad reputation of social Darwinism and memetics has been discussed in the literature, and recommendations for new terminology have been given.<ref name=Keller_1994>Template:Cite book</ref> What correspond to replicators or mind-viruses in memetics are called linguemes in Croft's theory of Utterance Selection (TUS),<ref name=Croft_2006>Template:Cite book</ref> and likewise linguemes or constructions in construction grammar and usage-based linguistics;<ref name=Kirby_2013>Template:Cite book</ref><ref name=Zehentner_2019>Template:Cite book</ref> and metaphors,<ref name=Camarinha-Matos&Afsarmanesh_2008>Template:Cite book</ref> frames<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> or schemas<ref name=Langacker_1987>Template:Cite book</ref> in cognitive and construction grammar. The reference of memetics has been largely replaced with that of a Complex Adaptive System.<ref name=Frank_2008>Template:Cite book</ref> In current linguistics, this term covers a wide range of evolutionary notions while maintaining the Neo-Darwinian concepts of replication and replicator population.<ref name=Beckner_2009>Template:Cite journal</ref>

Functional evolutionary linguistics is not to be confused with functional humanistic linguistics.

Formalism (structuralism)Edit

Advocates of formal evolutionary explanation in linguistics argue that linguistic structures are crystallised. Inspired by 19th century advances in crystallography, Schleicher argued that different types of languages are like plants, animals and crystals.<ref name=Arbukle_1970>Template:Cite journal</ref> The idea of linguistic structures as frozen drops was revived in tagmemics,<ref name=Pike_1960>Template:Cite journal</ref> an approach to linguistics with the goal to uncover divine symmetries underlying all languages, as if caused by the Creation.<ref name=Seuren2015>Template:Cite book</ref>

In modern biolinguistics, the X-bar tree is argued to be like natural systems such as ferromagnetic droplets and botanic forms.<ref name=Piattelli-Palmarini&Vitiello_2015>Template:Cite journal</ref> Generative grammar considers syntactic structures similar to snowflakes.<ref name=Chomsky_2015/> It is hypothesised that such patterns are caused by a mutation in humans.<ref name=Berwick&Chomsky_2015/>

The formal–structural evolutionary aspect of linguistics is not to be confused with structural linguistics.

EvidenceEdit

There was some hope of a breakthrough with the discovery of the FOXP2 gene.<ref name="Scharff 2005">Template:Cite journal</ref><ref name="Scharff 2011">Template:Cite journal</ref> There is little support, however, for the idea that FOXP2 is 'the grammar gene' or that it had much to do with the relatively recent emergence of syntactical speech.<ref name="Diller 2009">Template:Cite book</ref> The idea that people have a language instinct is disputed.<ref name=Sampson_2007>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref> Template:Cite book </ref> Memetics is sometimes discredited as pseudoscience<ref name=Polichak_2002 /> and neurological claims made by evolutionary cognitive linguists have been likened to pseudoscience.<ref name=Schwarz-Friesel_2012 /> All in all, there does not appear to be any evidence for the basic tenets of evolutionary linguistics beyond the fact that language is processed by the brain, and brain structures are shaped by genes.<ref> Compare: Template:Cite book </ref><ref> Compare: Template:Cite book </ref>

CriticismEdit

Evolutionary linguistics has been criticised by advocates of (humanistic) structural and functional linguistics. Ferdinand de Saussure commented on 19th century evolutionary linguistics:

"Language was considered a specific sphere, a fourth natural kingdom; this led to methods of reasoning which would have caused astonishment in other sciences. Today one cannot read a dozen lines written at that time without being struck by absurdities of reasoning and by the terminology used to justify these absurdities”<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>{{#if:|{{#if:|}}
— {{#if:|, in }}Template:Comma separated entries
}}

{{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown=Template:Main other|preview=Page using Template:Blockquote with unknown parameter "_VALUE_"|ignoreblank=y| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | author | by | char | character | cite | class | content | multiline | personquoted | publication | quote | quotesource | quotetext | sign | source | style | text | title | ts }}

Mark Aronoff, however, argues that historical linguistics had its golden age during the time of Schleicher and his supporters, enjoying a place among the hard sciences, and considers the return of Darwinian linguistics as a positive development. Esa Itkonen nonetheless deems the revival of Darwinism as a hopeless enterprise:

"There is ... an application of intelligence in linguistic change which is absent in biological evolution; and this suffices to make the two domains totally disanalogous ... [Grammaticalisation depends on] cognitive processes, ultimately serving the goal of problem solving, which intelligent entities like humans must perform all the time, but which biological entities like genes cannot perform. Trying to eliminate this basic difference leads to confusion.”<ref name=Itkonen_1999>Template:Cite journal</ref>{{#if:|{{#if:|}}
— {{#if:|, in }}Template:Comma separated entries
}}

{{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown=Template:Main other|preview=Page using Template:Blockquote with unknown parameter "_VALUE_"|ignoreblank=y| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | author | by | char | character | cite | class | content | multiline | personquoted | publication | quote | quotesource | quotetext | sign | source | style | text | title | ts }}

Itkonen also points out that the principles of natural selection are not applicable because language innovation and acceptance have the same source which is the speech community. In biological evolution, mutation and selection have different sources. This makes it possible for people to change their languages, but not their genotype.<ref name=Itkonen_2011>Template:Cite journal</ref>

ReferencesEdit

Template:Reflist

External linksEdit

Template:Animal communication Template:Evolutionary psychology Template:Portal bar