Sociological Linguistics

[Dr. John E. McLaughlin and Michelle R. Sutton]

Nik Taylor wrote:

> "Dr. John E. McLaughlin and Michelle R. Sutton" wrote:

>> I'm sorry, Pat, but your statement about Evolution here shows EXACTLY why
>> modern languages (and any other language we have any evidence of) are NOT
>> evolving.

> Actually, "evolve" is a neutral term, indicating mere change by the
> accumulation of small scale changes.  It is usually "survival
> enhancing", at least in the short term, but can also refer to changes
> that are neutral, or even harmful.

But linguists should be very careful in distinguishing between the two words
"evolve/evolution" and "change".  We don't use the strict biological definition
of "evolution" and any linguist who tries to do so is not going to be taken
seriously.  Linguistic "evolution" is that part of the history of language
between the first human utterances and the stabilization of modern human
grammar.  It ended before the first recorded or reconstructed human languages.
"Change" is what goes on now and has gone on throughout our recorded linguistic
history.  "Evolution" was the process of increasing complexity.  "Change" shows
no change in overall complexity, but additions and losses of different forms
(words, structures, sounds).  Ancient Sumerian is no more or less complex in
its total grammar (phonology, morphology, syntax) than is Modern English.
There is a lot of change that has occurred between Proto-Indo-European and
Modern English, but no evolution.

John McLaughlin
Utah State University