Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T05:57:45.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cultural evolution is not independent of linguistic evolution and social aspects of language use

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2022

Mathias Scharinger Open the ORCID record for Mathias Scharinger [Opens in a new window]  and
Luise M. Erfurth Open the ORCID record for Luise M. Erfurth [Opens in a new window]
Mathias Scharinger
Affiliation:
Phonetics Research Group, Institute for German Linguistics, Philipps-University Marburg, 35032 Marburg, Germany [email protected]://www.uni-marburg.de/en/fb09/institutes/german-linguistics/phonetics/team/mathias-scharinger Research Center «Deutscher Sprachatlas», Institute for German Linguistics, Philipps-University Marburg, 35032 Marburg, Germany Center for Mind, Brain & Behavior, Universities of Gießen & Marburg, 35032 Marburg, Germany
Luise M. Erfurth
Affiliation:
Department of Social Psychology, Goethe University Frankfurt, 60323 Frankfurt a. M., Germany [email protected]://www.goethe-university-frankfurt.de/88478923/M_A__Luise_Erfurth
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The bifocal stance theory (BST) focuses on cultural evolution without alluding to associated processes in linguistic evolution and language use. The authors briefly comment on language acquisition but leave underexplored the applicability of BST to linguistic evolution, to changes of language representations, and to possible consequences for constructing social identity, based on, for example, collective resilience processes within language communities.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e268
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Behrens, H. (2009). Usage-based and emergentist approaches to language acquisition. Linguistics, 47(2), 383–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charbonneau, M. (2020). Understanding cultural fidelity. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 71, 1209–1233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, H. (2018). Präteritumschwund im Deutschen. Dokumentation und Erklärung eines Verdrängungsprozesses. Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, E., Michel, J.-B., Jackson, J., Tang, T., & Nowak, M. A. (2007). Quantifying the evolutionary dynamics of language. Nature, 449(7163), 713–716. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06137CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.108.2.291CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinker, S. (1998). Words and rules. Lingua, 106, 219–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhode, A. K., Voyer, B. G., & Gleibs, I. H. (2016). Does language matter? Exploring Chinese–Korean differences in holistic perception. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–10. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01508.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
White, K., Argo, J. J., & Sengupta, J. (2012). Dissociative versus associative responses to social identity threat: The role of consumer self-construal. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 704–719. https://doi.org/doi:10.1086/664977CrossRefGoogle Scholar