Cladistic language concepts

[Ghiselin, Michael]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
          Dear Professor Hewson:
               Thank you for adding one more "vote" to what by now
          seems to be a consensus.  Thank you also for the substantive
          contribution to the discussion.
               Usually when it is said that something is universal
          that means that it is true of everything of which its
          universality is asserted.  Therefore if something is a
          universal for languages, it is true of all of them, with no
          exceptions.  Such universality can be necessary, as when we
          say that all prime numbers are odd; but it can also be a
          matter of contingent fact, for example, all mammals have
          hair.  It is true but things could be otherwise.
               Mutation is universal among genetic systems, and we
          know that it is necessary because were it not the second law
          of thermodynamics would be false.  Genetic change also seems
          to be universal in all biological species, and probably for
          the same reasons that you give for languages.  Although one
          can imagine situations in which there is virtual stasis for
          a long number of generations, it would seem that a certain
          amount of genetic drift is likewise inevitable.  So the
          universality of change may be a law of nature, and not just
          a matter of contingent, historical fact.
               As a comparative anatomist I have no difficulty
          understanding what is meant by a system in the sense at
          least of a group of parts within a whole that interact
          with one another.  The component organisms of a species and
          whatever the corresponding entity in a language may be, also
          interact in a coordinated manner.  Therefore changing parts
          affects the wholes of which they are parts.  But some parts
          are affected more than others because of the functional
          linkages among them.  In metameric animals, the body
          consists of serially repeated units having the same basic
          arrangement of parts, developing under a common control
          system, and functioning in more or less the same way.  (We
          are metameric, though it is much more obvious in
          arthropods.)  A gene that affects one limb also affects all
          the others, at least to some degree.  This can be seen in
          bassets, dachshounds and quite generally.
               Switching to philosophy, one interesting point about
          how you conceptualize the problem is that you conceive of
          languages as systems in this sense.  They are concrete,
          particular things, with interactions among their parts, that
          evolve as such.  One way to characterize such a position is
          to say that it takes the individuality of languages very
          seriously.  It is very easy for somebody who treats a whole
          as if it were its parts viewed atomistically to overlook
          such deeper connections.  That is part of the problem with
          those who want to think of languages as defined by mutual
          intelligibility.  So you have really added something to the
          discussion, and again I am most grateful.
          Michael T. Ghiselin
          Center for the History and Philosophy of Science
          California Academy of Sciences
          Golden Gate Park
          San Francisco, California 94118