Do languages really "evolve"?

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@Al-Khalil

It seems for Christy, then, there are no sociobiological threats to linguistics & anthropology or to USA society? Sociobiology simply doesn’t exist for Christy and it’s links to evolutionary psychology are impossible to point out.

First of all, let me say what I think and you say what you think. Feel free to ask a question about what I think, but do not attempt to write out my thoughts and beliefs for me. See our gacious dialogue guidelines: “Please avoid attributing beliefs, motivations, or attitudes to others.” FAQ/Guidelines

@Al-Khalil

there are no sociobiological threats to linguistics & anthropology or to USA society?

I have no idea what this even means, or what a “sociobiological threat” is.

@Al-Khalil

While it is undoubtedly true that some “linguists say languages evolve,” as you say, Christy. It is also true that other linguists (& not just fringe ones!) don’t say that “languages evolve,” but rather look scientifically at how languages change and develop, etc. Do you wish to argue with that fact?

“Evolve” is a verb in the English language that means “change over time” or “develop slowly” and that is what languages do. Whether I use the word “evolve” or “change” or “develop” to describe the linguistic process is irrelevant, because they are synonymous. In describing exactly how languages evolve, or change, or develop, it becomes clear that the linguistic processes that lead to change over time differ from biological processes that lead to change over time and they cannot be modeled using exactly the same models, as the article I linked to pointed out.

@Al-Khalil

I would advise you to become more careful with making loose generalizations - e.g. “Linguists say”. 1) You simply can’t speak for all linguists

Linguists do say it all the time and I was making a correct generalization about a field I work in. I never said or implied all linguists say anything.

@Al-Khalil

This one can so easily be shown wrong in the literature.

Feel free to cite whatever sources you are alluding to, as all of the “great controversies” in linguistics that I am aware of have nothing to do with denying that languages change over time or denying that languages can be grouped into phylogenetic trees, or refusing to use vocabulary that has parallels in biology like “ancestral form” “extinct” “related” “homologous” or “genetic relationship.” These terms have different nuances when applied to linguistics, but they are useful and clearly widely used.

@Al-Khalil

It may be that your husband’s cultural reading of Logos & Scripture speaks louder on important topics here than your scientific-naturalised reading of Logos & Scripture, don’t you think?

Umm…Okay… Why are we bringing my husband into this? I do my own theology and Scripture reading. And as far as I know, you have no clue what either of us thinks about much of anything.

@Al-Khalil

please stop trying to naturalise linguistics using evolutionistics

I have no idea what this means. Applying ideas from biological evolution has zero relevance in my day to day work. Understanding how the particular variety of Me’phaa I study has evolved from an ancestral form by studying genetically related varieties is actually very helpful. I don’t tell you how to do your job.

I am happy to discuss areas of disagreement, but please drop the condescension and lecturing tone. It’s very off-putting.