Discussion Details
| Title: | Re: Dixon's model of punctuated equilibrium |
| Submitter: | Jose-Luis Mendivil |
| Description: | Marinus Van der Sluijs' remarks on Dixon's model are really interesting, but I think he does not show that Dixon's model is flawed. Ven der Sluijs identifies convergence with 'punctuation of equilibrium', and this is a wrong way. 'Convergence' is just a (putative) consequence of a period of equilibrium, as a result of intense borrowing between languages in a (perhaps just ideal) equalitarian situation (see Campbell 2004 for a recent critical review of this point and others). But Dixon's model does not identify every effect describable as 'convergence' with a period of equilibrium. In fact, Van der Sluijs uses the term 'convergence' in a different sense. In Dixon's book 'convergence' refers to the effect of the spread of linguistic features amongst languages in a linguistic area, not to the possible assimilation of a substratum language. Dixon's model may have problems (again see Campbell 2004), but I do not see anyone in Marinus's message. Reference: Campbell, Lyle (2004) ''Historical Linguistics. The State of the Art''. In Piet van Sterkenburg (ed.): Linguistics Today - Facing a Greater Challenge. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: 109-139. Best regards: Jose-Luis Mendivil Universidad de Zaragoza Spain |
| Date Posted: | 03-Apr-2005 |
| Linguistic Field(s): | Historical Linguistics |
| LL Issue: | 16.1018 |
| Posted: | 03-Apr-2005 |
