(c) Tolerance for variance; the mechanism of all changes. …(Separate by paragraph, not by page) ……munity because there would be no individual or not enough individuals whose latent structure is similarly deformed to allow them to resonate efficiently to such deviant behavior. On the other hand, it might be postulated that the deviation is due to a genetically transmitted trait, so that deviant children could resonate to their deviant parents. In fact, language deficient families do exist, although it is not yet certain that the mechanism is necessarily the one postulated here. However there is another reason why marked deviations of latent structure have a slow chance for dissemination.
The role of language is so important for social integration that such abnormally reduces the opportunity for finding a partner, and if the deviation is market enough, the individual will become virtually incommunicado with great probability of exclusion from the gene-pool. Furthermore, genetically based alternations of a given trait are likely to be accompanied by other deviations, and thus there is a greater proportion of multiply abnormal individuals among the group of people with latent structure alternations than among a random sample of the population. This is corroborated by the fact that children seen in clinics with complaints of severely defective language abilities have a greater incidence of associated abnormality than children admitted with infectious diseases. Such confluence of abnormalities in the latent structure deficient group raised the barriers to mixing in the general gene-pool and reduces the chances for perpetration of the trait. Thus, only small deviations from the norm are tolerated by the population owing to a potent process of selecting out the deviants. The variants is thereby continuously and actively kept small resulting automatically in a frequency distribution curve with steep slopes and a narrow base.
Compare this now to variations in actualization. Here, the latent structure or competence is not affected, and, therefore, resonance to this behavior is much more likely to occur, and social communication has a much lower risk of being seriously impaired. Thus, much greater variations in actualization and superficial or manifest structure are tolerated within the mechanisms of social cohesion. Deviations in performance may quite easily be compensated for (compare the congenitally deaf) so that all but the most extreme cases have a chance to integrate in the group and thus disseminate their idiosyncracies. This markedly greater degree of tolerance results in frequency distribution curves of deviations with much more gradual slops and a much wider bade than in the instances above. Superficial variance tends to be preserved in contrast to the variance in latent structure. A graphic representation of theoretical, cumulative frequency distribution of variation in latent structure and actualization or realized form is shown in Fig. 9.1 The norm is arbitrarily defined as consisting of all individuals above the 16th and below the 84th percentile; extreme deviants are defined as those individuals who fall below the sixth or above the 94th percentile, whereas the tolerated abnormal ones occupy the regions between. The graph shows how the two frequency distributions differ in terms of absolute variations encountered in the respective populations. As we look now at Fig. 9.1, the twice 10% of tolerable variations in the properties of the realized structure comprise a wider range of absolute variations of latent structure. That is, the raw material for potential change in the superficial structure of language is richer in tolerated absolute variations than the raw material on the level of underlying structure. Therefore, changes that may be brought about by selection continue the paragraph
Scan and insert Fig.9.1. in appropriate place
FIG. 9.1. Cumulative frequency distribution of latent and superficial structure traits. (Assume that in every individual, traits are measurable in terms of a common, objective standards. ) Reasons as to why the frequency distribution of latent structure properties must have a much narrower base than those of superficial structure were given in the test. The graph shows that if tolerance levels for variation are the same for the two curves and both curves are normal, superficial structure has a wider range of tolerated variations (hatched) than latent structure (cross-hatched).
Biases are of a much narrower range for deeper than for superficial structure. In the history of the species, changes of underlying structure should, therefore, occur at a much slower rate than changes of superficial structure. To bring about a change of given magnitude by very small steps should take much longer than by large steps.
Here we have the core of our explanations: the deep and fundamental capacity for language can only be altered by very small steps, because there is not much variability to select from; the extreme deviants were eliminated before they could interact with the population and those that remain cannot be resonated to. The superficial structure of language can change rapidly and into many different directions because individuals are allowed to enter the group processes despite many kinds of deviations of varying magnitude; there variations can spread owing to the resonate phenomenon and thus within few generations cause enough change to account for historical shifts.
On the level of latent structure we are dealing with biological evolution and the biasing principle that gives direction to change is that of natural selection. Natural selection provides unidirectional biases. In the course of the evolutionary transformations that eventually led to our capacity for language, there have been no returns to or repetitions of prior stages.
The realized structure is affected by different biasing principles that act faster and cause changes with greater freedom of direction including, occasionally, a return to a prior stage or condition. The selective biases are of varying origin; most of them are due to capacities that are not related directly to man’s propensity for language. The deliberate additions to or deletions from the vocabulary, the degradations or elevations, narrowing or widening of particular meanings, the suppression of dialects, or glorification of vernaculars are purposeful alterations (that is, selections from the potentially available material). There are other changes that have nothing to do with purpose, and their motive forces may not be easily discernible. Nevertheless, they constitute selections out of a mass of potentially available variations which supply the material for change. Sound shift are a good example of this. The acoustic specifications of a group of speech sounds are altered, and this will sooner or later affect phonemic structure. All biological variations in anatomy of the vocal tract and articulatory motor coordination leave their effect upon the acoustics of an individual’s speech sounds. Since there is a great deal of tolerance for these variations they are allowed freely to enter the community and to affect other speakers, either through the phenomenon of response of the spreading of the… and