Uniformitarian Principle

[philjennings at juno.com]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Larry Trask said:

> It started like this. Somebody asked whether it was possible that languages
> spoken very long ago had systematically changed much more slowly than
> languages have been observed to change in the last several thousand years.

> I replied as follows. I said: if you can find good, hard, solid, shiny
> evidence that such was the case, then fine. But, in the absence of such
> evidence -- and I don't know of any -- no such assumption can be defended,
> because it flagrantly violates the Uniformitarian Principle -- as it plainly
> does.

I was that somebody.

The basic subject here is the "rate of change" of human languages, and
whether that rate itself changes (accelerates / decelerates) over time, as
a consequence of other factors that have changed over human history.  In
physics, we are pleased to know that the rate of (locational) change of
falling objects increases with mass and decreases with distance, in
accordance with laws described by Isaac Newton.  Gravity is a constant,
but it is contingent on mass and distance.

Philosophically, language belongs in two places, (1) in the individual
toolbox of each language speaker, and (2) in the community of those who
use language to understand each other.   If the rate of change of human
languages is governed by laws to do with individual ears, brains, mouths,
vocal cords, et cetera, and these physical attributes have not changed
over thousands of years, then the rate of change of human languages can
intelligently be assumed to be constant.  If the rate of change of human
languages is governed by laws to do with how often humans talk to others
in their community, to strangers, to people with different areas of
expertise, and so forth, then as society gets more complex and populations
increase, the rate of change will accelerate or decelerate through time.

We don't know enough about the rate of change of human languages to say
either (1) or (2).  It appears that a consensus has not been
achieved as to how to measure rates of language change.  If such a
consensus could be achieved, we could use it to test hypothesis (1),
hypothesis (2), and dozens of other hypotheses.  Gravity is a simple thing
as it's contingent on two factors.  Language is so likely to be much more
complex, that it's easy to see why people throw up their hands and say:
"let's just assume the rate is uniform across all space and time."

This assumption, however, is more an admission of defeat than
a principle to be championed.

Larry Trask has given us the history of Basque as an instance where the
rate of language change decreased as Basque society grew increasingly
engaged with a complex world.  This is certainly the opposite of what I'd
expected, in arguing for a gradual increase in the rate of change of
languages over time, which is what I'd theorized in a prior post.
However, in a contrary way, it is also evidence for hypothesis (2),
substituting deceleration for acceleration.  I suspect that Larry Trask
would like to be armed with a hundred instances of rates of change
veering one way or the other without respect to any societal factors
whatever.  This would be evidence that rates of change are truly random,
and uniformitarianism is the best way to smooth across several millennia
of random ups and downs.

This is an application of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle to language
change.  We don't know => we can't know => there are no consistent factors
out there to be known.  It's odd to find linguists reconciled to
randomness re. rates of language change, when they delight in systems and
consistency in all other areas.

Also, the evidence in Larry's hundred instances is anecdotal in the
absence of a consensual measuring system, and some anecdotes, however
entertaining, will be wrong.

The posts I make to this service are often embarrassingly ignorant.  In
this case I hope someone will point out to me that systematic and
creditable work has been done on measuring rates of language change.  I
will be grateful for any citations.