Uniformitarian Principle

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

In a message dated 7/25/01 11:40:01 PM, acnasvers at hotmail.com writes:

<< Someone has used the term "punctuated equilibria" from the Eldridge-Gould
model of speciation, which in my opinion doesn't belong here. Analogies
between evolutionary biology and linguistic change are very poor, not least
because language is inherently incapable of reaching equilibrium. Instead,
phonemic shifting suggests classic stick-slip behavior, or Reid's
elastic-rebound theory of earthquakes. >>

Another quick note.  If I remember rightly, Dixon applied punctuated
equilibrium to the language diversity issue -- dialects in the manner of
organisms splitting off and diversifying until they reach a point where the
diversity is no longer adaptive.  There's a shaking out that follows,
resulting in greater linguistic uniformity among speakers (or organisms.)

The question that PE addressed in natural selection does seem to have some
clear analogies to languages - if groups of speakers (like organisms) have a
tendency to split off into dialects that develop into languages, why aren't
there ten million languages by now?  Obviously, there is a functional factor
- even in preliterate societies - that "pulls" back on all the regional,
subcultural and other diversity and tends to uniformity.

The "punctuation" happens, on the other hand, because uniformity and
equilibrium are not in the end effectively adaptive to a constantly changing
environment.  When a species becomes very uniform and specialized to a
specific environment, that necessarily increases its vulnerability to
inevitable environmental change.  (E.g., the near extinction of the lazy,
carefree giant rabbits that evolved on predator-free Pacific islands before
sea-going European cats landed.) Thus the equilibrium falls apart, diversity
returns and the cycle starts again.

PE would therefore be an attempt to explain the wavering balance between
everyone speaking their own private dialect (clearly dysfunctional) and
everyone speaking the exact same dialect/language (perhaps equally dysfu
nctional.)

What perhaps justifies the analogy between linguistic and biological
diversity and the attendent processes is the assumption that they are both
are "preemptively adaptive" systems.  Some part of them changes constantly,
which keeps life - and perhaps language - a step ahead of inevitable
environmental change. (Hmmm.  This turned out longer than I had hoped.)

<<Instead of trying to beat professional comparativists at their own game,
this is the sort of thing Steve Long should be doing, since his voice has
been the loudest in calling for the quantification of historical
linguistics.>>

A friendly correction.  I am not trying "to beat professional comparativists
at their own game."  (Lord knows, Prof Trask is sure to take that and run
with it.)  My point about quantification is purely defensive.  (And my goals
are much more modest.)

The assertion has been made that some measure of linguistic 'rate of change'
can be used in some way to date *PIE.   My point was - and it still stands -
that there is no scientific basis for that assertion.  Quantification is just
what science uses to keep everyone accurate and on the same page.  And
quantification is therefore essential when you attempt to describe the "rate"
of anything.

If you can't measure (or really even DEFINE, it turns out) a concept as
"quantified" as rate of change, then the concept is not objective or
checkable.  This is equivalent
to legally making the speed limit be a speed that just overall "feels too
fast."  It is a purely subjective standard.  And whatever else it is, it is
not science.

Regards,
Steve Long