Thread by @ProfWHollmann

Just read Pleyer & Hartmann’s (2019) paper ‘Constructing a consensus on language evolution? Convergences and differences between biolinguistics and usage-based approaches’ (doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.…). It’s a beast! 🦁 1/

OK, the bibliography takes up 5K of the 19K words, but that in itself tells you something.
The authors (@symbolicstorage and @hartmast) have done an amazing job of surveying the lively and increasingly complex field of language evolution. 2/

Their basic argument, made very convincingly, is that there's evidence of convergence between biolinguistic (or Chomskian) and usage-based (or emergentist) approaches to the evolution of language. There appears to be movement in both “camps” to make this possible. 3/

For example, UG has been slimmed down in Chomskian theorising, while selectional biological pressures from the brain on the development of language are emphasised in the work of e.g. @NickJChater and @MH_Christiansen). Differences of emphasis remain, though. 4/

Also, P&H emphasise that not all biolinguists and usage-based theorists embrace the developments that enable convergence. And they note that in the study of what they call “knowledge of language and its description” (p. 12) the divide remains more pronounced. 5/

That reminded me of interesting discussions on @haspelmath’s blog, where some (especially younger) generative grammarians appear to distance themselves from #Chomsky’s minimalist thinking (see e.g. Omer Preminger's comment on dlc.hypotheses.org/2490). 6/

One final thought, or question: P&H seem to view convergence positively. I can see clear benefits too. For instance, scholars from other disciplines who want to draw on linguistic theory may currently be at a loss as to which approach to adopt 😕 7/

Or worse, they might not even realise that such large differences exist. Linguistics students face a similar problem. What approach(es) they're exposed to is presently a bit of a lottery, depending on the university they end up at 😟 8/

Yet are there also *disadvantages* to rapprochement, I wonder? Has the theoretical tension that has existed for decades now perhaps been of the creative kind in some ways? (My sense is that it has indeed, but that may need a separate thread!) 9/9