Socilological vs natural selection (ex Re: The Neolithic Hypothesis)

[Robert Whiting]

On Thu, 8 Apr 1999, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:

> Robert Whiting <whiting at cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:

> >It is my impression that almost all linguistic change is brought
> >about by sociological factors.

> I would rather say that linguistic change, brought about by
> articulatory, combinatory, contact-related etc. "mutations", is
> selected for by sociological factors.

I'm sure there's a better formulation of what I said, and
"sociologically selected" might be it.

> This is not unlike biological change, where the mutations are
> brought about by various factors (both "internal" quirks in the
> way DNA is structured and is copied, and "external" factors like
> cosmic rays), and the mutations are then selected for by their
> effect on the "fitness" or sex-appeal of the phenotype.

On the other hand, I'm somewhat leery of drawing strong parallels
between linguistic change and biological change, because so many
people, particularly non-linguists, seem to take them literally
(i.e., assume that languages change the same way that biological
organisms do) or extend the analogy in ways that are not applicable.

For one thing, forms can be taken over for reasons like prestige
of the source language or dialect, or because the speakers find a
word with a sound or meaning that they just happen to like in another
language, and there is, as far as I know, no mechanism that duplicates
this in biological change.  Secondly, sociological change does not
have to be survival-enhancing (people, especially as a group, don't
always know what is good for them, and even if they do, they don't
always do it), whereas biological change, because of natural selection,
will preserve survival-enhancing mutations by its very nature.

I guess what I am saying is that while the analogy of selection for
change may be good, the analogy of sociological selection versus
natural selection seems less so.  Sociological selection would seem
more likely to produce a figurative duck-billed platypus than a cheetah.
Now I'm sure that the duck-billed platypus is marvellously adapted to
its environment, but it does look more like it was created by a
committee that could never agree on anything than by natural selection.
And you know, walks like a duck-billed platypus...  Sociological
selection of linguistic changes seems more likely to produce change for
the sake of change (i.e., just to be different [or to be more the same])
than change that is likely to enhance the survival of either the society
(culture) or the language.  Only the use of language, not any specific
language in any specific form, seems to be a survival technique in
Homo sapiens.  And indeed, it is only a language acquisition device
that is genetically transmitted, not an acquisition device for any
particular language.

Bob Whiting
whiting at cc.helsinki.fi