Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-5lx2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-26T09:21:14.843Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Linguistic Selection: An Utterance-based Evolutionary Theory of Language Change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

William Croft
William Croft
Affiliation:
University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK. Email: W.Croft@Manchester.ac.uk
Get access

Abstract

Hull (1988) uses recent developments in the theory of biological evolution, in particular rigorous application of the population theory of species, a consistently phylogenetic approach to evolutionary taxonomy and a proposed resolution of the dispute over which levels natural selection operates, to propose a general analysis of selection processes which he then applies to conceptual change in science. Hull's model of selection is applied to language change. It is argued that the utterance plays the central role in linguistic selection, and causal mechanisms by which linguistic selection – language change – occurs are proposed. The final sections consider the possibility that selection occurs also at higher levels of linguistic organization, and suggest how language contact may be accounted for in terms of phylogenetic reticulation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 19 , Special Issue 2: Special issue on LANGUAGE CONTACT AND LANGUAGE CHANGE , December 1996 , pp. 99 - 139
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bybee, J. L. 1985. Morphology: A Study Into the Relation Between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, J. K. & Trudgill, P. 1980. Dialectology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. 1990. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. 1995a. Bringing Chaos into Order: Mechanisms for the Actuation of Language Change. Presented at the International Conference on Historical Linguistics, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Croft, W. 1995b. Autonomy and Functionalist Linguistics. Language 71, 490–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1980. The Languages of Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. 1976. The Selfish Gene. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. 1982a. Replicators and Vehicles. In King's College Sociobiology Group (eds), Current Problems in Sociobiology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 45–64.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. 1982b. The Extended Phenotype. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Dobzhansky, T. 1937. Genetics and the Origin of Species. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Fishman, J. 1972a. The Relationship between Micro- and Macro-Sociolinguistics and the Study of Who Speaks What Language to Whom and When. In Pride, J. B. & Holmes, J. (eds), Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, pp. 15–32. [Revised version of “Who Speaks What Language to Whom and When?", La linguistique 2 (1965), pp. 67–88.]Google Scholar
Fishman, J. 1972b. The Sociology of Language. In Giglioli, P. P. (ed.), Language and Social Context: Selected Readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, pp. 45–60.Google Scholar
Forchheimer, P. 1953. The Category of Person in Language. Berlin.$$$$$CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghiselin, M. T. 1987. Species Concepts, Individuality, and Objectivity. Biology and Philosophy 2, 127–145.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1979. On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. 1991. The Last Stages of Grammatical Elements: Contractive and Expansive Desemanticization. In Traugott, E. & Heine, B. (eds), Approaches to Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 301–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, J. 1983. Iconic and Economic Motivation. Language 59, 781–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, J. 1985. Natural Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. 1994. Ritualization and the Development of Language. Perspectives on Grammaticalization, ed. William, Pagliuca, 3–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 1993. A Typological Study of Indefinite Pronouns. Ph.D. dissertation, Freie Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
Holm, J. 1989. Pidgins and Creoles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hull, D. L. 1988. Science as a Process: an Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingram, D. 1978. Typology and Universals of Personal Pronouns. In Greenberg, J. H., Ferguson, C. A. & Moravcsik, E. A. (eds), Universals of Human Language, vol. 3: Word Structure. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 213–248.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. 1986. Background and Mass Extinctions: the Alternative of Macro-evolutionary Regimes. Science 231, 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jablonski, D. 1987. Heritability at the Species Level: an Analysis of Geographic Ranges of Cretaceous Mollusks. Science 238, 360–363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keller, R. 1994. On Language Change: The Invisible Hand in Language. London: Routledge. (Translation and expansion of Sprachwandel, 1990.)Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1988. An Overview of Cognitive Grammar. In Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lass, R. 1990. How to Do Things with Junk: Exaptation in Language Change. Journal of Linguistics 26, 79–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddieson, I. 1984. Patterns of Sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinet, A. 1952. Function, Structure and Sound Change. Word 8, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E. 1942. Systematics and the Origin of Species. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. 1978. Evolution. Scientific American 239, 46–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayr, E. 1982. The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, Inheritance. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Milroy, L. 1987. Language and Social Networks (2nd ed.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J. 1981. The Listener as a Source of Sound Change. In Masek, C. S., Hendrick, R. A. & Miller, M. F. (eds), Papers from the Parasession on Language and Behaviour, Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 178–203.Google Scholar
Ohala, J.J. 1983. The Origin of Sound Patterns in Vocal Tract Constraints. In MacNeilage, P. F. (ed.), The Production of Speech. New York: Springer, pp. 189–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, J. J. 1989. Sound Change is Drawn from a Pool of Synchronic Variation. In Breivik, L. E. & Jahr, E. H. (eds), Language Change: Contributions to the Study of its Causes. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 173–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, J. J. 1992. What's Cognitive, What's Not, in Sound Change. In Kellermann, G. & Morrissey, M. D. (eds), Diachrony Within Synchrony: Language History and Cognition, pp. 309–355.Google Scholar
Searle, J. 1979. Literal Meaning. Expression and Meaning, 117–136. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, P. 1990. Killing the Spirit: Higher Education in America. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Thomason, S. G. & Kaufman, T. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vendryes, J. 1921. Le Langage. Paris.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U. 1953. Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U., Labov, W. & Herzog, M. I. 1968. Empirical Foundations for a Theory of Language Change. In Lehmann, W. P. & Malkiel, Y. (eds), Directions for Historical Linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 95–195.Google Scholar