My apology to the upset. You’ve seen quickly how fast heat & smoke arises from “origins of language” topics. That’s why Linguistic Society of Paris banned discussion in 1866.
Could there be a way to discuss “language change” (the master topic) non-evolutionarily? Not if it is assumed & forced by BioLogos leadership that there is only one option, which is “linguistic evolution”. I’d have thought Christy could be more open-minded to alternatives than she is displaying here, especially since quite a few linguists reject the evolutionist impingement.
If the assumption is that anyone who disagrees with “linguistic evolution” theory, must be ___________ (insert whatever negative term Richard Dawkins says, impolitely), then I’d rather aim for higher, more gracious discourse than that.
This term would apply to every activity we know of - even time itself is measured by “change” - yet on this site, evolution is a term used to support Darwinian thinking, when in fact this clearly is wrong - or stated differently, it is a term that looses all scientific meaning.
I don’t know what having an opinion about Logos means in the first place.
We don’t find “biological explanations” for linguistic phenomena. We find linguistic explanations. We find sociological and anthropological explanations. I believe there are spiritual and ethical dimensions to the power dynamics that influence human societies and relationships, and those power dynamics play out in areas studied by linguistics.
Okay, I will try to give you the benefit of the doubt.[quote=“Al-Khalil, post:31, topic:36040”]
And yet you presumably also think morality “changes” and “develops” and is not “static.”
[/quote]
Why do I presumably think that? When did I ever mention morality as a product of evolution? I think the average moral consciousness of humanity as a whole has changed over time. But I don’t have a biological explanation for it, I have a spiritual one. I think God has been working for a long time in human history and we are on a redemptive trajectory. That is why treatment of women and marginalized classes has improved in many places over the last several thousand years. I don’t believe it is because humanity has evolved to a higher moral plane because of something biologically intrinsic to humanity.
All I said is that there are recognized parallels between the evolution of language and biological evolution. I only brought it up because it seemed you were criticizing BioLogos contributors for talking about the parallels (like Dennis Vennema is known to do because sometimes the analogies with language change help people grasp concepts that apply to biological change over time.) You have imported an awful lot of meaning I never intended into a couple straightforward statements. [quote=“Al-Khalil, post:31, topic:36040”]
are you suggesting linguistics is an amoral field, Christy, and that is why importing concepts from evolutionary biology is safe, fine, ideology-free, etc.?
[/quote]
I have already said that where linguistics intersects with sociology, ethics are involved. I do not find evolutionary psychology all that useful for explaining the sociological phenomena that play out in language use and are studied by linguists. I am in agreement with many sociologists assessment that, for example, the “Man” chapter of Sociobiology is lacking in true explanatory power, although I admit that I am taking their word for it, and I have no intention of wasting my time on it personally.
Linguistics does not rely on evolutionary biology except for the relatively few linguists who theorize about how/when the capacity for language and communication via language evolved. I do not know any of those linguists, nor am I all that familiar with their work. The concepts “imported” to explain language change, explain language change, not biology. The concepts of “relatedness” or “inheritance” or “ancestors” are ideologically neutral.
I wasn’t aware we were talking about the origin of languages. In fact, I clarified in post 5 that indeed, I was not talking about the origin of languages. I have only ever been asserting that languages change over time, and terms that are used in evolutionary biology can be properly used analogously in linguistics.
Thanks for your review of that essay in God and Nature. I wonder if you happened to have had the time to read the paragraph immediately following the one you quote. I will refresh your memory. It says:
"However, while it is tempting to rush into the possible theological implications of the EES, these speculations on how God might have directed the evolutionary process are not terribly convincing. There have been other equally plausible and equally unapproachable hypotheses put forward for mechanisms of divine intervention in evolution. The stochastic nature of quantum events at the level of the electrons of atoms involved in nucleotide base pairing has been suggested to provide a target for divine action, as have the effects of highly focused cosmic radiation on mutational events. However, the chances of finding good scientific arguments for any kind of direct divine intervention in biology seem to be slim. It could very well be futile to pursue such mechanistic explanations for God’s putative guidance of the process of life’s evolution."
I dont see how one could characterize this as God of the gaps, and the sort of quote mining you indulged in, is not very admirable. And btw, referring to Jerry Coyne as a “leading evolutionary biologist” is a bit hard to take. I dont even think he would refer to himself as such. I think he would much prefer “leading advocate for atheistic evolution”. His blasting of the EES is far from representing any consensus among the real leaders of evolutionary biology. [quote=“Al-Khalil, post:16, topic:36040”]
I thought we had cleared that up.
[/quote]
We had, and you are correct that we did end up agreeing with each other. The point of my comment addressed to Christy was that your first comment to me (when you didnt realize my actual positions) reminded me of your first comment to Christy, whom I think you have put in the same position. I dont need to speak for her, I think she has done a great job in explaining her positions to you, which are clearly not what I think you thought they were.
Also, I think I should thank you for referring to some of my work, but that has apparently also raised the hackles of at least one of the other participants here. Oh well. We can all stand to learn from each other, and we should all be prepared to be teachers as well as students of the magnificent creation God has given us.
I do have to apologize for taking a section of your article as I was at a loss as to what Al-Khalil was getting at by referring your work. At first I was guessing he was anti-evolution based upon some posts and he kept blasting BioLogos and I couldn’t seem to follow anything he was saying. So I was trying to see and assumed he was a big fan of everyone who writes against random mutation based evolution as some creationists tend to be. I still hold it’s ridiculous to even speculate (though sincerely apologize for quote mining and ignoring the obvious bold font after the quote) about how God moved the direction of evolution. You are certainly free to guess where God is/was at and how He directed evolution (if He did at all). I still partially stand by my God of the gaps accusation, as it could be said that ‘complex natural phenomena leave room for God to be involved’ as we certainly are limited in our current understanding. Or we go quantum and affirm/suggest God worked there. That’s a good place to say He works since we may never be able to test it. However you are not fully in these God of the gaps camps, affirming His beauty through what is known. So again I do apologize
In answer to the title of this thread, I have copied two versions of the Lord’s Prayer from the Wikipedia article on the history of the Lord’s Prayer in English translation. It may seem impossible to believe, but every generation of English-speakers over the thousand years since the Old English version could understand both their parents and their children, yet the language transformed drastically.
The letter that looks like a D with a line through the stem is an eth, pronounced ‘th.’ The reason we see shops named “Ye Olde ___ Shoppe” is that the first printers in England used French-made type, which didn’t have an eth, so they substituted a Y, which looked similar. The other unfamiliar letter is a thorn, also pronounced ‘th.’
ADt 995, Old English[3]
Fæder ūre, ðū ðē eart on heofonum,
Sī ðīn nama gehālgod.
Tō becume ðīn rice.
Gewurde ðīn willa
On eorþan swā swā on heofonum.
Urne gedæghwamlīcan hlāf syle ūs tōdæg.
And forgyf ūs ūre gyltas,
Swā swā wē forgyfaþ ūrum gyltendum.
And ne gelæd ðū ūs on costnunge,
ac alȳs ūs of yfele.
Sōþlice.
AD 1389 Wycliffe[3]
Our fadir that art in heuenes,
halwid be thi name;
Thi kingdom cumme to;
be thi wille don
as in heuen and in earthe;
giv to vs this day our breed ouer other substaunce;
and forgene to vs oure dettis,
as we forgeue to oure dettours;
and leede us nat in to temptacioun,
but delyuere vs fro yue
I admit to being totally baffled by Al-Khalil’s posts on linguistics. I’ve been retired for many years now and freely admit that I’m not at all current on the latest debates within the linguistics academy. Yet, for the life of me I do not understand what is controversial about the fact that languages evolve over time. Indeed, that’s why we often use language evolution examples when explaining biological evolution. Other than Ray Comfort, I can’t think of anyone denying that languages evolve and diversify as populations are separated and time brings its changes. (And even Ray Comfort’s reactions to the idea were more clueless and even ambiguous than an outright denial.)
Yet, the following was even more baffling:
Huh? Call me clueless but I don’t understand how any field of study is “moral” or “amoral”. And I can’t recall even one instance when I’ve heard a linguist reflect on some moral, non-moral, amoral, or immoral aspect of linguistics.
I admit to no longer keeping current in what was once a major part of my career but this entire thread totally escapes me.
I’ve been a spectator on these forums for a long time and I can’t recall reading any posts from Christy’s husband nor her quoting from his publications. However, my memory can fail me and perhaps I simply missed this?
In any case, I’ve repeatedly examined the above excerpt from Al-Khalil and I remain baffled as to his meaning.
The title of this thread is “Do languages really evolve?” I worked with my fair share of eminent linguists and I can’t recall even one who would say no to that question. Is this a case of paranoia concerning a word that evokes strong emotions? I’ve known plenty of Young Earth Creationists who would concede all sorts of observed evolutionary processes as long as nobody dared to speak the forbidden words “evolve” or “evolution.” Is that what is happening here on this thread?
Sorry to play catch up and be the clueless guy but I just can’t seem to contextualize this thread within any of the usual frameworks. Even a lot of the terminology in this thread escapes me.
Thank you, and of course, apology accepted. When I first read your comment, I thought “Hmm, he’s right, but that doesnt sound like me”. I was quite relieved when I went back to the article and saw the following paragraph. Peace of Christ to you.
When I first saw this thread I thought “Ah good! Linguistics!” But like a few others here, I am completely lost over what the issue is! I had no trouble understanding what Christy said, and I’m another linguist who happily says that languages evolve - as do all the linguists I know!
Evolutionary Phonology by Juliette Blevins CUP is quite an interesting book. I suppose we could discuss that, but it isn’t really linked to evolution… just small changes!
I’m finding it hard to find a topic - I’m not controversial enough and I like to keep the peace!
I am just reading Adam and the Genome - so when I get to the language bit, I might find something to discuss!
Is there any way in BioLogos to receive an email if a thread includes linguistics?
I started one that is at least Bible translation related:
No, but I could message you if one pops up, and you’ll get an e-mail if you have set your notifications to send you one when someone sends you a PM. Sometimes humans are better than computers at this kind of thing anyway.
Maybe this has more to do with wars imposing other cultures and languages, and mixing of peoples - as empires were formed, the dominant culture was imposed on large populations and often language changes would also result. The English language has undergone changes that may be equated with the influences of Britons, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, Normans, and the mingling of these.
But I suggest the parallels with biology are arbitrary (although both deal with humans) - take for example, the changes to the English language - a few centuries, and hardly change over time lines discussed for evolution.
“Even though there is certainly no consensus yet, not even about what an adequate theory of language evolution should look like, there is at least widespread agreement about one thing: The origins and evolution of language is based on a congruence of three different evolutionary processes, influencing and reinforcing each other: socio-ecological evolution, biological evolution, and cultural evolution. Socio-ecological evolution is our best source for explaining the reasons why humans speak. The ecological pressures at the dawn of our species must have encouraged symbolic communication and the complexity of social structures must have grown to cope with these pressures [8–10]. Biological evolution is our best source for explaining how the embodiment and neural architecture necessary for language have originated and how they get reconstructed in development [7]. And cultural evolution is our best source for explaining how specific language subsystems, for example a tense–aspect system, may emerge and culturally propagate in a population [11]. Each evolutionary process pushes the other forward and gets pushed in turn. Increased social and ecological complexity promotes brain complexity and is enabled by increased linguistic capabilities. Linguistic complexity pushes biological complexity upwards and thrives on social and ecological complexity. So we get a self reinforcing spiral process (see Fig. 1) in which different levels of evolution interact [12].”
I don’t think I am going to argue with any of that! But it probably needs unpacking more - especially with regard to changes in languages even up to the present day. Evolutionary Phonology suggests that a lot of the phonetic changes are due to perception - the parent says “tling” and the child hears “kling”, or ease of production - the child thinks they are saying the complicated sound, but they produce something simpler. Then there can be a phonetic effect from saying one sound which is then perceived as the main cue. For example, if you say ba and pa, the chances are you said the pa with a higher pitch. You didn’t control for that, it just happens. But the next generation could hear that and think that saying pa with a higher pitch is part of the message. Then another generation could think that the higher pitch IS the main signal of the sound - and they could get relaxed about whether they say p or b, while making sure there is a pitch change. Another reason for change is contact with other languages.
I have a personal example from Africa of seeing a language changing. Women in a rural setting use 3 tones (3 distinct pitches as I have just described), but they are quite relaxed about voicing (b or p). Men in a rural setting still have 3 tones, but Low tone is associated with b more than p. Men who have moved to an urban setting (where French is used more) have a system like the rural men except that Low tone has become the same height as Mid tone. (So their system is 2 tones plus a voicing distinction). Finally, women in an urban setting have almost abandoned all of the tones. This must mean a loss of information, so I expect there to be further change to that dialect. This appears to be a language in the process of fairly major change. I documented this 10 years ago, so it might be worth testing this again to see what the situation is now! (For further details, please message me.)