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

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

In a message dated 4/18/99 6:27:42 PM, mcv at wxs.nl wrote:

<<True, although I think most biological changes are in fact
survival-neutral.>>

Although I think you are correct about many biological changes - which I take
to mean inherited traits - "most" is probably too many.  Some evolutionist
would say not any that can arise with any significant frequency in a
population.

Possibly more relevant is the notion of vestigal traits - traits that once
had a functional advantage in the environment, but no longer do.  These
traits can disappear quickly or slowly or find a new function, but they
sometimes defy immediate explanation until the surrounding contingencies are
found.  (The large size of avocado pits for example has been explained as a
seed distribution strategy taking advantages of the large digestive tracts of
the giant mammals who inhabited the Americas more than ten millenia ago.
This was obviously not the first explanation that came to mind.)

<<But there is indeed no "survival of the fittest" about language change.>>

Of course, "survival of the fittest" presumes a competition for limited
resources that is not necessary in the development of differentiated traits.
For example, out of a common predator ancestor who is a generalist, two
different species might evolve along side of one another - one with
mouse-catching traits and one with bird-catching traits.  There is no
competition between the two, and both sets of traits have survival value.

As far as language goes, advantageous "traits" that do not conflict with one
another can presumably differentiate and coexist.  "Sweat" and "perspiration"
don't need to eliminate one another, since they serve different functions in
communication - like the two different predatory traits above.

<<The emphasis of my analogy was on the side of genetic/linguistic drift,
occurring for "no" reason (or at least not for reasons that have anything to
do with their being selected).>>

Although I am not saying this is wrong in anyway, I'd like to point out that
any language feature or "trait" that has even a temporary value in
communicating (a function of language) should have a better chance of coming
into usage.  But a temporary (communicative) advantage simply does not rule
in language as it often does in biological evolution.

A simple example is word length (in English if not in German).  Obviously if
every common English word were a "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious," there
might be an extreme hindrance to the communicative function.  Words this long
should not have a lot of "survival value."

But it is important to understand that truly random trait generation would
not favor short words over very long ones.  If long ones show up randomly
they should stick as well as short ones.  But something inhibits the random
generation of new very long words.  That is why I've pointed out that truly
random change generation is not the engine behind language as it is behind
biological evolution.

Language change is closer to animal husbandry or horticultural hybridization.
 The range of changes is controlled.  Random forms unconnected with older
forms do not suddenly displace those older forms on a daily basis.
"Acceptance" requires more than just incidential or short term success in
communication.  Language change is more genetic engineering than random
mutation.  If it weren't, we should see little or no vestige of PIE in
Indo-European languages.   But language is much more conservative than that.
While evolution is not.

Regards,
Steve Long