Citation: Walkden, G. (2019). The many faces of uniformitarianism in linguistics. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.888
The discussion of this paper focused on the uses of the term ‘uniformitarianism’ as it applies to debates within Creolistics and language contact. The discussions focused on three main points: (i) Exceptionalism and Uniformitarianism, (ii) Methodological Uniformitarianism Issues, and (iii) What is uniform under uniformitarian views?
First, exceptionalism seems to take on different meanings within the literature. Many creolists cite Peter Bakker as an exceptionalist, while he identifies as a Uniformitarian. Bakker noted that many creolists associate exceptionalism with simplicity or ‘less-ness,’ a view which he does not support. Rather, his approach notes structural similarities that set Creole languages apart, but not via simplicity. Thus, creolists could consider abandoning the term ‘exceptionalist’ as a lot of the typical associations with exceptionalism do not have modern supporters.
Although we may expect the associations with Methodological Uniformitarianism to be unproblematic (most debates would focus around Substantive Uniformitarianism), we discussed potential debates regarding some forms of Methodological Uniformitarianism. In particular, certain sociolinguistic situations may not make sense to assume to be the same in the present as in the past. For example, with the use of newer technologies, it is unclear if social conditions can be considered ‘constant’. We left this question open for further discussion and research.
Finally, we considered what is uniform under different creole genesis perspectives. For example, under Bakker’s uniformitarian view, the idea is that certain elements of the ecology are uniform in Creole genesis (e.g. the coming together of diverse languages and the need to communicate between these groups). This view was challenged under the consideration that some Creole languages may have a clearly documented pidgin phases, where other seem to have developed quickly: thus, there are different creole genesis paths. However, this difference does not seem to make a difference in the structural similarities identified by Bakker’s work. Bakker countered this point by suggesting that all creole languages must have passed through some kind of ‘simplification process’ regardless of the time frame, so the processes are comparable under this perspective. Overall, this discussion shows the importance of uniformitarians being clear about what elements they hold to be constant, to better foster relevant discussions, echoing one of Walkden’s calls to action.
Overall, this discussion raised several important discussions linked to the use of uniformitarianism both in Creolistics and Linguistics more generally. Although these discussions should be considered further, this meeting lead to fruitful discussions about the different uses of uniformitarianism in creolistics, and prescribes clear discussion of vocabulary and the exact assumptions of any given uniformitarian perspective.