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!
2 Likes
We should start our own real linguistics thread. Someone pick a good topic.
1 Like
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?
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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.
Here’s an interesting summary from this paper:
“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].”
Is that a topic? Seems like plenty to chew on…
It’s clear from the wealth of information in this paragraph alone, that “Al-Khali” knows very little about this topic.
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.)
2 Likes
An uncontroversial statement. Here is another interesting parallel often overlooked: Speciation takes place in the context of a “population.” A new species does not suddenly appear in the form of one individual. Similarly, language requires a population of speakers. One individual can no more “invent” language than one individual can “invent” a species. We’ve recognized the impact of genetics on the problem of “literal Adam,” but the origin and evolution of language presents just as difficult an obstacle to the special creation of Adam as genetics.
Me either! Haha. I throw it out there not to argue with, but just to discuss. People hear “evolution” and automatically assume “biological evolution,” which is understandable on a site like this, but the word does not always carry that limited meaning, as Christy said. Context is everything…
1 Like
Why hadn’t I thought of that?!
Because experts sometimes overlook the obvious? (But now I’m sounding like a creationist trying to take over the biology curriculum… Lol)
1 Like
On the other hand, it does seem that a small population of individuals can invent a language within just a couple of generations, judging from the rapid development of ISN in Nicaragua. There’s no obvious parallel for that in genetics.
1 Like
Good point. We’re still just describing similarities, so the metaphor does break down eventually.
Or the development of creoles in many contexts.
Yes, a small population, but still a population.
When I was a doing research on language change which happens as a result of some contact with another language, I noted a model that suggested most of the change took place in about 4 generations. There must obviously be exceptions to that - and the influence of the second language is very important to this time scale. But the implications of this for linguists are both good and bad - good, because you might see the whole process from beginning to end, and bad, because you need to anticipate it coming to record the situation before it comes, and because you can easily miss the fact that it is happening till it is too late to document it. I attribute the fact that I landed in the middle of a great example of language change to God looking after me by giving me a great research topic!
1 Like
Yes, this is true. The key here is they (“on this site”) are not claiming the combinations “theistic evolution” or “evolutionary creation” have ANY scientific meaning on their own; it is strictly a topic of “science and faith”. They are using it specifically to target Protestant evangelicals who embrace YEC at their core Christian identity. Without that background, there is no need even to discuss these things with “most normal” biologists.
You are not their target audience and neither am I. We are both more concerned with orthodoxy than with YEC evangelicals getting educated about evolutionary sciences and their place in bigger conversations about philosophy, science and religion.
Again, GJDS, I suggest to drop Darwin. He is largely irrelevant by now. Yet you keep mis-introducing him into discussions.
I am pleased that you are able to make careful distinction of terms that some invested others are not. Colloquial usage isn’t going to raise the bar very high here.
No, but it allows actual dialogue to take place. I like my bars low, so I can belly up to 'em.
3 Likes
As long as you know it’s a low bar going, Jay313, that’s fine.
I’m not going to spend much time on this. The obviousness of Christy’s confusion to me is echoed by the surprise that only an Orthodox Christian would defend a seemingly core teaching of Christian religion here: God created language concurrently with humanity. Christy is treating linguistics naturalistically in her approach, she is “biologizing” the meaning of language instead of “spiritualizing” it; while I’m not treating it ‘supernaturally’, but rather in a way that involves ethics & thus rejects evolutionary concepts as inadequate to describe language change, which in not a few cases is intentional, teleological, goal-oriented, planned, etc.
Please understand, that with all due respect, it is very difficult as you can imagine, to attempt to have a conversation with a person who says things like: “I have no intention of wasting my time on it personally.” It is almost like they are unwilling to learn from anyone not in their own island camp.
Between you & I, we are graciously agreed, in what you said: " the metaphor does break down eventually." So, let us investigate more carefully exactly where/when the metaphor (others use “parallels”) eventually break down. Would there be anything ungracious about paying due attention to that important issue that Jay313 raises?
As for me, I am a more welcoming person with others, even if they hold a different religious belief than I do. When I see people in Abrahamic faiths say things that appear to water down doctrines, dogmas and core teachings, as BioLogos with its (oftentimes highly neoliberal) evangelical Protestant leaning tends to do (e.g. here inviting polygenesis), I take notice and speak to specific instances. This case was very easy & I’m pleased to have the shared understanding of apparently the only Orthodox Christian on the site.
Check your definition of “core”. It’s a little off
2 Likes