Underestimating Language

[Steve Long]

In a message dated 12/8/02 6:10:47 PM, parkvall at LING.SU.SE writes:
<< Again, I would never claim that most of a languages structure is
communicatively useless. But I do maintain that significant parts of it are
indeed "diachronic detritus". All languages have their quirks, be it in the
form of irregularities, suppletion, portmanteau morphs, articulatorily
unmotivated allomorphy, semantically unfounded (from a synchronic point of
view) noun classification, and so on. The fact that much of this is tossed
over board in pidginisation and is not reinvented in creolisation is, I
think, a good indication that it doesn't serve much of a purpose. >>

The irony of Latin ("diachronic detritus") being used above points to the
fact that one man's flotsom and jetsam is another man's raft.

Recognizing "communication" out of context can be a difficult thing.  But we
might still admit as good evolutionary scientists that there are "vestigal
organs" that persist despite having lost their functionality.  A more correct
analysis of such a situation is that it would be more disruptive to overall
function or simply energy inefficient to drop such out-of-date features than
it is to just retain them.  It would be more detrimental to reorganize an
organism to remove a vestigal organ than to just let it persist.

If we evaluate languages as if creating an abstractly efficient language was
more important than "synchronic" communication, we might think that there is
some luxury available to speakers and listeners in these matters.  But
irregular verbs are what is expected in a language that uses irregular verbs.
 And using irregular verbs in such a language is a way to make sure that
improvements in language don't get in the way of communication.

We keep forgetting the listener in this equation and his convenience. The use
of "I be" versus "I am" (aside from its secondary social status implications)
is a distraction from the message itself to certain listeners, one that a
speaker might try to avoid for basic communicative purposes.

A good understanding of the "simplicity" of creole can be found in Stephen
Jay Gould's comments on the subject (e.g., in Speaking of Snails and Scales
in Dinosaur in a Haystack).  In the context where creoles arise, the
simplicity of creole may be the superior communicative solution.  Whether
Creole is a new language or a comparatively derived descendent of French,
neither a pidgin nor French served the specific types of information IN
CONTEXT that were being exchanged as well as Creole.  If we assume
communication value first, then we can also understand that the excess
baggage that Creole "dropped" has its own uses in other contexts.

I know that pointing to context is inconvenient when one is trying to
generalize phenomena.  But I'd suggest it is the methodology here that is
creating the impression that communication is not the overpowering objective
in these languages.  In all the examples given by Mikael Parkvall, can it
seriously be suggested that primary motivation of the speaker is not
communication?

Are we to think that "articulatorily unmotivated allomorphy" or "semantically
unfounded (from a synchronic point of view) noun classification" are meant to
reduce information between speaker and listener?  Even a speaker whose
purpose is obfuscation aims to appear to be communicating.

A far better interpretation is that a "simple" language arises because its
users do not have the luxury of embroidery or time-honored idiosyncracies.
Its speakers and listeners are synchronically using the best structure
available in context.

Steve Long