<Language> Lass, part 1 of 3: Electronic Virtual Review

H. Mark Hubey HubeyH at mail.montclair.edu
Mon May 17 03:18:05 UTC 1999


<><><><><><><><><><><><>--This is the Language List--<><><><><><><><><><><><><>


Since nobody wanted to make comments, I want to add a few more sentences
to the most interesting aspects of Lass's book.

> ----------------------Part 1 of 3 ------------------------
>
> Lass, Historical Linguistics, 1998.

> p.110
> Evolving systems (probably in any empirical domain) are characterized by
> what is known in mathematical theory of (nonlinear) dynamical systems
> (popularly `chaos theory') as `sensitive dependence on initial
> conditions'. The smallest differences in initial conditions may, in the
> later development of any pair of sublineages starting from (essentially)
> the same point have enormous consequences. In biotic and cultural
> systems, this connects with a property called path-dependency: `isolated
> populations... must tend to diverge even when they start from the same
> initial condition and evolve in similar environments' (Boyd & Richerson
> 1992:186). The key here is `similar': given any initial isolation
> whatever, and sufficiently complex and hence contingentlcy-laden
> landscape over which the original split populations develop, no two
> evolutionary trajectories (as wholes) will ever be identical. Since the
> very fact of initial `isolation' (whatever causes  it) means that the
> initial conditions will always be slightly diffferent, linguistic
> evolution will by definition be subject to massive contingency,
> which guarantees its genuine historicity.

These ideas can be basically found in the article written by M.
Gell-Mann, in
book edited by Hawkins and Gell-Mann. All linguists probably know who
Hawkins
is. Gell-Mann expressed the same ideas basically as "frozen accidents"
which
clearly refers to the initial conditions. The specific path/trajectory
taken
by the language is a function of its characteristics. The effect of
other
languages is exogeneous forcing, and to it we can add some random noise.


> Therefore:

A set of good heuristics derivable from probability theory;

> 1. A (perceptible) resemblance counts for nothing per se(e.g architect
> Fi arkkitehti)  though it may be a useful heuristic because it leads to
> falsifiable results

Not exactly right. Every resemblance counts, but exactly how it counts
when we take everything into account.

> 2. A resemblance counts only if it can be shown to be `regular'

Another good heuristic. This means that we have to take all the
evidence into account.

> 3. A  non-resemblance counts if it can be regularly derived from an
> ancestral form

This means that we can use regular-change rules to bring forms
back to resembling other forms in other languages. Here we even
have some idea of distance again; we are aiming at some kind of
a minimal set of rules. After all, if all we needed was rules,
we can always make up a rule for every sound change, but if we
have to explain N correspondences we don't want to make up N
rules, but prefer to have less. So 'regularity' means essentially
"more than one" or "repeated".


> 3. A likeness or even identity of a given segment in fi with the one in
> fj is not a correspondence, even in the presence of semantic likeness or
> identity, unless it is `regular' in the sense of 2.

Not right. If there were practically no changes,then there are no rules
but they do correspond. These rules without disclaimers would make a
language not related to itself or to its dialects.


> 5. If a language has been in intimate contact with a cognate language
> with a different history, extensive borrowing may produce multiple
> correspondences, which have to be sorted out on other grounds.

This is the basic problem. If two languages have come to resemble
each other via borrowing/copying we cannot tell.


> p. 140 Variation, diffusion  and competetion
>
> Aside from the interfering effects of analogy and borrowing, which were
> incorporated in the `classical' nineteenth-century procedure, there are
> other difficulties. We know now, due to the painstaking work done in
> the  last three decades in both the Labovian `variationist' and `lexical
> diffusionist' traditions (Chen 1972 and countless other contributions),
> that the following propositions are generally true for internal
> (`evolutive') change:
>
> a. Change is not catastrophic, but takes time. {Often centuries}

Hey, how about punctuated equilibrium models for languages :-)
Most of the time they change very little and then all of a sudden
they apparently go thru great changes over a short time and become
almost completely different languages.


> c. Changes may never complete, but may abort at virtually any stage.The
> typical shape of a change in progress is an exponential curve heading
> for an asymptote.

So then we should not be too strict in demanding regular sound change.



--
Best Regards,
Mark
-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
hubeyh at montclair.edu =-=-=-= http://www.csam.montclair.edu/~hubey
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>----Language----<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Copyrights and "Fair Use":     http://www.templetions.com/brad//copyright.html
"This means that if you are doing things like comment on a copyrighted work, making fun of it,
teaching about it or researching it, you can make some limited use of the work without permission.
For example you can quote excerpts to show how poor the writing quality is. You can teach a
course about T.S. Eliot and quote lines from his poems to the class to do so. Some people think
fair use is a wholesale licence to copy if you don't charge or if you are in  education, and it isn't.
If you want to republish other stuff without permission and think you have  a fair use defence, you
should read the more detailed discussions of the subject you will find through the links above."



More information about the Language mailing list