Advertisement

Coevolutionary Approaches to the Science of Language

  • Nicholas EvansEmail author
Chapter
  • 502 Downloads

Abstract

Since the famous exchange of letters between Darwin and Schleicher, the parallels between evolutionary processes in the biological and linguistic spheres have been evident. In this paper, I present a coevolutionary approach to language evolution, both in the early phase during which hominins evolved language and in subsequent phases during which humans evolved many thousands of languages whose vastly differing structures serve as a basic resource for understanding the operation of evolutionary processes on languages and cultures. The key elements in this coevolutionary approach are (a) the adoption of a gradualist approach to initial language evolution and (b) the recognition of a large number of selectors (systemic, modality, demographic, usage patterns, biogenetic, epidemiological, sociocultural) which are unevenly distributed across speaker populations and which may nudge emerging languages structures into quite different parts of the design space. Not only does the coevolutionary approach presented here bring the methods of studying linguistic evolution closer to those used in biology, it places the phenomenon of diversity and variability—diversity at the level of differences between languages, and variability between how individuals use them—into the same central role that these occupy in evolutionary biology.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The ideas here were presented at the 22nd Evolutionary Biology Meeting at Marseilles in September 2018, and I thank Pierre Pontarotti for his kind invitation to attend this most stimulating conference, as well as to the audience members for their questions. I would also like to thank Damián Blasi, Lindell Bromham, Bill Croft, Dan Dediu, Mark Ellison, Russell Gray, Steve Levinson, Ron Planer and Kim Sterelny for discussions bearing on the contents of this paper, Aung Si for drawing Fig. 10.1, Susan Ford for assistance with editing and the Australian Research Council for support of the work reported on here, in particular through grants FL130100111 ‘The Wellsprings of Linguistic Diversity’ and CE140100041 ‘Dynamics of Language’.

References

  1. Anttila A, Cho YY (1998) Variation and change in optimality theory. Lingua 104:31–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson Q, Gray R (2005) Curious parallels and curious connections: phylogenetic thinking in biology and historical linguistics. Syst Biol 54(4):513–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blasi DE, Moran S, Moisik SR, Widmer P, Dediu D, Bickel B (2019) Human sound systems are shaped by post-neolithic changes in bite configuration. Science 363(6432)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brosnahan LF (1961) The sounds of language: an inquiry into the role of genetic factors in the development of sound systems. W. Heffer & Sons, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Chomsky N (1988) Language and problems of knowledge: the Managua lectures. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Chomsky N (2007) Of minds and language. Biolinguistics 1:9–27Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky N, Berwick RC (2016) Why only us: language and evolution. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Christiansen MH, Chater N (2016) Creating language: integrating evolution, acquisition, and processing. MIT Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Croft W (2008) Evolutionary linguistics. Annu Rev Anthropol 37(1):219–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Darwin C (1859) The origin of species. John Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Darwin C (1871) The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. John Murray, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dediu D (2011) Are languages really independent from genes? If not, what would a genetic bias affecting language diversity look like? Hum Biol 83:279–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dediu D, Ladd DR (2007) Linguistic tone is related to the population frequency of the adaptive haplogroups of two brain size genes., ASPM and microcephalin. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:10944–10949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dediu D, Levinson SC (2018) Neanderthal language revisited: not only us. Curr Opin Behav Sci 21:49–55.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.01.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dediu D, Moisik S (2019) Pushes and pulls from below: anatomical variation, articulation and sound change. Glossa (A Journal of General Linguistics) 4(1):7.1–33.  https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.646
  16. Dediu D, Cysouw M, Levinson S, Baronchelli A, Christiansen MH, Croft W, Evans N, Garrod S, Gray R, Kandler A, Lieven E (2013) Cultural evolution of language. In: Richerson PJ, Christiansen MH (eds) Cultural evolution: society, technology, language, and religion. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 303–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dennett D (1995) Darwin’s dangerous idea. Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Donohue M (2008) Complexities with restricted numeral systems. Ling Typol 12:423–429Google Scholar
  19. Dor D (2015) The instruction of the imagination. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Du Bois J (1987) The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 55:59–138Google Scholar
  21. Durham W (1991) Coevolution: genes, culture and human diversity. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  22. Ehrlich P, Raven PH (1964) Butterflies and plants: a study in coevolution. Evolution 18:586–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Enfield NJ (2002) Ethnosyntax. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  24. Evans N (2003) Context, culture and structuration. Annu Rev Anthropol 32:13–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Evans N (2009) Two pus one makes thirteen: senary numerals in the Morehead–Maro region. Ling Typol 13(2):319–333Google Scholar
  26. Evans N (2013) The diversity of languages as a resource for studying cultural evolution. In: Richerson PJ, Christiansen M (eds) Cultural evolution: society, technology, language, and religion. Strüngmann Forum Reports, vol 12. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 233–268Google Scholar
  27. Evans N (2016) Typology and coevolutionary linguistics. Ling Typol 20(3):505–520Google Scholar
  28. Evans N (2018) Did language evolve in multilingual settings? Biol Philos.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-018-9609-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Evans N, Levinson SC (2009) The myth of language universals. Behav Brain Sci 32(429–448):472–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Everett C (2013) Evidence for direct geographic influences on linguistic sounds: the case of ejectives. PLoS ONE 8:e65265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Everett DL (2005) Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã. Another look at the design features of human language. Curr Anthropol 46:621–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hammarström H (2009) Whence the Kanum base-6 numeral system? Ling Typol 13:305–319Google Scholar
  33. Haspelmath M (1999) Optimality and diachronic adaptation. Z Sprachwiss 19(2):180–205Google Scholar
  34. Keller R (1998) A theory of linguistic signs. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  35. Kirby S, Dowman M, Griffiths TL (2007) Innateness and culture in the evolution of language. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:5241–5245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Levinson SC (2006) On the human “interaction engine”. In: Levinson SC, Enfield NJ (eds) Roots of human sociality: culture, cognition and interaction. Berg, Oxford New York, pp 39–69
Google Scholar
  37. Levinson SC (2016) Turn-taking in human communication, origins, and implications for language processing. Trends Cogn Sci 20(1):6–14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.10.010CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Levinson SC, Dediu D (2013) The interplay of genetic and cultural factors in ongoing language evolution. In: Richerson PJ, Christiansen M (eds) Cultural evolution: society, technology, language, and religion. Strüngmann Forum Reports, vol 12. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 219–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Maddieson I, Coupé C (2015) Human language diversity and the acoustic adaptation hypothesis. Proc Mtgs Acoust 25:060005.  https://doi.org/10.1121/2.0000198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Meyerhoff M (2015) Introducing sociolinguistics, 2nd edn. Routledge, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Moisik S, Dediu D (2017) Anatomical biasing and clicks: evidence from biomechanical modeling. J Lang Evol 2(1):37–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Niklas KJ (1994) Morphological evolution through complex domains of fitness. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 91:6772–6779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Niklas KJ (2004) Computer models of early land plant evolution. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci 32:47–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pinkster H (1985) The development of future tense auxiliaries in Latin. Glotta 63(3/4):186–208. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40266718
  45. Schleicher A (1869) Darwinism tested by the science of language, translated by AVW Bikkers. John Camden Hotten, LondonGoogle Scholar
  46. Smith K, Kirby S (2012) Compositionality and linguistic evolution. In: Hinzen W, Machery E, Werning M (eds) The Oxford handbook of compositionality. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  47. Spitzer L (1947) Essays in historical semantics. Russell & Russell, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Tomasello M (2008) Origins of human communication. MIT Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Trudgill P (2011) Sociolinguistic typology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  50. Vendryès J (1902) Some thoughts on sound laws. In: Keller AR (ed) A reader in historical and comparative linguistics. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, pp 109–120Google Scholar
  51. Wallace AR (1867) Creation by law. Q J Sci 4:471–488Google Scholar
  52. Williams FE (1936) Papuans of the trans-fly. The Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ARC Centre of Excellence for the Dynamics of Language (CoEDL)School of Culture, History and Language, College of Asia, and the Pacific, Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations