rjohara.net |
Darwin-L Message Log 7:78 (March 1994)
Academic Discussion on the History and Theory of the Historical Sciences
This is one message from the Archives of Darwin-L (1993–1997), a professional discussion group on the history and theory of the historical sciences.
Note: Additional publications on evolution and the historical sciences by the Darwin-L list owner are available on SSRN.
<7:78>From lgorbet@mail.unm.edu Mon Mar 21 09:04:25 1994 Date: Mon, 21 Mar 1994 08:04:20 -0700 To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu From: lgorbet@mail.unm.edu Subject: Re: trees, historical linguistics and gradualness Margaret Winters seeks to qualify Tom Cravens' remarks on gradualness, saying >When we are talking >about specific linguistic units, ...and especially sounds, >this question of gradualness versus abruptness seems to me to >take on another dimension. For many versions of the phoneme >(contrastive units of sounds within a given language), they can >either exist or not exist, but cannot be only partially in >existence, virtually by definition. This is different from the >sounds of languages which change, according to evidence from >speech variation within a community in particular, very gradually, >with variation across lexical items, social register (formal versus >informal speech, etc.) and other factors. What this comes to >(again by my interpretation which is certainly open to argument) >is that Tom's image of a continuum is very true for sound change, >especially if we abstract away from any sense of a straight line, >but is not true for structural change where we look at the >significant units, phonemes This is not literally true, in some fairly non-controversial ways (and some quite controversial ones too!). First, the inventory of phonemes can vary within a community just as surely as can their precise pronunciations. In American English, for example, there is a widespread change occurring which merges the vowels of the words _caught_ and _cot_ (eliminating as a phoneme the vowel of the former, as it is pronounced in most British English and much American, including my own speech). In any introductory linguistics class, I can be confident that there will be students for whom the vowel of _caught_ ("open o") is a member of a different phoneme from that of _cot_ and others for whom it is not. Moreover, in a single speaker's speech, two phonemes may exist in some registers but only one in others. Thus for me, in my native dialect of Amer. English, the vowels of _pin_ and _pen_ do not contrast; but they do in the more formal academic English that I generally use at the university. And two sounds may contrast in some phonological environments and not others. Or may contrast only in a very small part of the vocabulary. Or most but not all. I suspect analogies with biological evolutionary phenomena are fairly easy to see. To take but one example, for two populations, what percent of their members must be how likely to be incapable of successful interbreeding with those of the other for them to be separate species? Or, perhaps more to the point, given just two *individuals* from the two populations, there may be a particular likelihood that a given offspring will be viable and itself fertile---how small does it have to be... Finally, Margaret correctly notes that >phonemes by most accounts are >not just useful inventions of linguists to talk about organization >of language, but exist in psychologically real ways as human mental >categories. However, though this certainly *is* controversial, there are those of us who believe that even the contrast between phonemes may, in a single variety of a single speaker's speech, be fuzzy in certain instances (albeit exceptional ones). This might be manifested behaviorally, for example, by inconsistent pronunciation or discrimination. And would tend to occur during acquisition, or during times of incipient change. Larry Gorbet lgorbet@mail.unm.edu Anthropology & Linguistics Depts. (505) 883-7378 University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM, U.S.A.
Your Amazon purchases help support this website. Thank you!