This extract from Evans and Green (2006) may

help!
Keywords:

innovation (synchronic)
propagation (dyachronic)

Theoretical background:

David Hull’s Generalized Theory/Analysis of Selection

Rudi Keller’s (1994) work on linguistic interaction

 Biology Language
Replicator An entity possessing structure that Gene Lingueme (i.e. a linguistic structure
can be passed on in an utterance (utterance = a usage
event))
Replication The process of copying a replicator Language use
Normal replication The process of replication resulting Conforming to linguistic conventions
in an exact copy
Altered replication The process of replication whereby Not conforming to linguistic
the resulting replicator is different conventions (innovation)
from the replicator it copies
Interactor An entity that interacts with its organism Speaker(’s grammar)
environment so that replication can
occur
Selection ( The process whereby replicators are Propagation
differential differentially perpetuated (i.e. some
replication) replicators are more successful than
others)
Lineage An entity that persists over time Species Language (a population of
due to replication utterances) as a historical entity
• Linguistic behaviour as social action:

Hypermaxim of linguistic interaction: ‘Talk in

such a way that you are most likely to reach
the goals that you set yourself in your
communicative enterprise’. (Keller 1994: 106)
Normal replication

‘Talk in such a way that you are understood’.

(Keller 1994: 94)
Altered replication: ‘intentional’

Be expressive:

‘Talk in such a way that you are noticed’. (Keller 1994: 101)

‘Talk in such a way that you are not recognizable as a member of the
group’. (Keller 1994: 101)

‘Talk in an amusing, funny, etc. way’. (Keller 1994: 101)

‘Talk in an especially polite, flattering, charming, etc. way’. (Keller 1994:

101)

Be economical:

‘Talk in such a way that you do not expend superfluous energy’. (Keller
1994: 101)
Altered replication: ‘non-intentional’

sound change (cf. GVS, assimilation)

form-function reanalysis (cf. grammaticalization of going to)

[NB the view of the GVS as being an instance of non-

intentional altered replication is questionable, as we’ll see
later]
Selection

Accommodation
‘Talk like the others talk’. (Keller 1994: 100)

Act of identity
‘Talk in such a way that you are recognized as a
member of the group’. (Keller 1994: 100)

Prestige
Adoption of changes as a result of aspiring to a social
group.
 Here are a few questions about McWhorter’s papers for you.

Questions on McWhorter (2009):

• What is the origin of auxiliary do in McWhorter’s view?

Summarise (in a couple of sentences per point) McWhorter’s arguments against

the view:

•that Celtic do was due to contact with English

•that auxiliary do is a Germanic family trait
•that auxiliary do was due to internal change (cf. habituality, perfectivity,
reinforcement for SVO order)
•that auxiliary do appeared too late to have been modelled on Celtic
•that there are too few Celtic loanwords in English.

•What is the difference between Celtic and Norse influences in McWhorter’s view?
 Questions on McWhorter (2002):

• Why should we refute the Middle English creole hypothesis?

•What are overspecification and complexification?

•What explanations for the ‘simplifications’ McWhorter illustrates does he

reject and why?

•What is his hypothesis?

•What evidence does he claim supports his analysis?

•What mechanisms foster underspecification and simplification in his view?