Universals and change

[Roger Wright]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
 
 
Professor Farlund's contribution is nicely put and admirably concise;
yet the existence of "Universal Grammar" is a theory; the properties
that it is said to have are also theoretical (and they too change over
time). The fact that languages change is universally true (empirically);
surely only the latter qualifies as a genuine "universal"?
        Nor is it necessarily true that, every time a detail of a
language changes, the whole "system" changes; that too is a theory, one
which I know most linguists subscribe to (but which seems rather an
unhelpful perspective to others). New details in practice usually
introduce variability into the exisitng system, rather than abolishing
it. It would be different if new linguistic phenomena always ousted the
old ones at once, but (empirical truth) they don't.
        It's a real divide among linguists, this; whether we think facts
or theory are more important. If in doubt, I'd plump for the facts.
 
 
>The idea that change should be a universal is meaningless since language
>universals are based on generalizations over properties of *systems*. When
>a language changes, a system changes, and this new system must again obey
>whatever constraints are imposed by UG. Change in itself cannot be part of
>the system. The only interesting connection between universals and change
>is the fact that no change can lead to a result which violates UG.