Evolution, and 'functional' + 'social'

[sylvester.osu]

While replying to Bill Croft's posting (see below), T. Wood wrote:
>>I prefer to refer to the former as evolution and the latter as history.
Less confusing, and less likely to give the impression that the social
aspect of language change is absent in favour of some kind of biological
determinism:

e.g. Africans have 'less developed languages' because they are
racially/biologically 'less developed'.

Tahir Wood's "African" example doesn't sound quite in order to me here. Who
has ever decided that Africans have 'less developed languages'? Less
developed than which other languages? Tahir Wood might not mean any bad in
citing this example. However, I think that in the year 2002/3, i.e.
very many decades after von Humboldt and his predecessors, statements like
his should be abandoned even when they don't mean anything bad. I think that
though we still have a lot to learn about Language and languages,
linguistics has
acquired enough knowledge concerning the rapport between language and
culture, and language and society as to know that it makes no sense talking
of more developed or less developed languages. Such phrases
offer no good illustration of any question treated in linguistics at all.
Rather, they tend to instill in some weak minds the contrary of what we
mean. So let's beware of the examples we give.

Thank you all, and have a nice Xmas holiday.
Sylvester


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tahir Wood" <twood at UWC.AC.ZA>
To: <FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu>
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 8:36 AM
Subject: Re: Evolution, and 'functional' + 'social'




>>> Bill Croft <w.croft at MAN.AC.UK> 11/29/02 06:56PM >>>
      One must distinguish between the evolution of language
and the evolution of languages. The former is the evolution
of human cognition and social behavior that permitted the
rise of modern human language. This is of course an
instance of biological evolution, of human beings. The
latter is the process by which linguistic elements change
over time. This is an evolutionary process, that is it
involves change by replication; but it is not the same
evolutionary process as biological evolution.

I prefer to refer to the former as evolution and the latter as history. Less
confusing, and less likely to give the impression that the social aspect of
language change is absent in favour of some kind of biological determinism:
e.g. Africans have 'less developed languages' because they are
racially/biologically 'less developed'.
Tahir