Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Open Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Ehrhart, Sabine

1 Issue per year

Covered by:
Elsevier - SCOPUS
Clarivate Analytics - Emerging Sources Citation Index

Open Access
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Lexical selection and the evolution of language units

Glenn Hadikin
Published Online: 2015-06-25 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2015-0013


In this paper I discuss similarities and differences between a potential new model of language development - lexical selection, and its biological equivalent - natural selection. Based on Dawkins' (1976) concept of the meme I discuss two units of language and explore their potential to be seen as linguistic replicators. The central discussion revolves around two key parts - the units that could potentially play the role of replicators in a lexical selection system and a visual representation of the model proposed. draw on work by Hoey (2005), Wray (2008) and Sinclair (1996, 1998) for the theoretical basis; Croft (2000) is highlighted as a similar framework. Finally brief examples are taken from the free online corpora provided by the corpus analysis tool Sketch Engine (Kilgarriff, Rychly, Smrz and Tugwell 2004) to ground the discussion in real world communicative situations. The examples highlight the point that different situational contexts will allow for different units to flourish based on the local social and linguistic environment. The paper also shows how a close look at the specific context and strings available to a language user at any given moment has potential to illuminate different aspects of language when compared with a more abstract approach.

Keywords: memes; natural selection; lexical priming; needs only analysis; NOA; lexical unit; lexical selection; linguemes


  • Baxter, Gareth J., Richard A. Blythe, William Croft et al. 2009. Modeling language change: an evaluation of Trudgill’s theory of the emergence of New Zealand English. Language Variation and Change 21(2). 157-196. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Biber, Douglas. 2009. A corpus-driven approach to formulaic language in English: multi- word patterns in speech and writing. Paper presented at Corpus Linguistics 2009, University of Liverpool, 20-23 July. Google Scholar

  • Croft, William. 2000. Explaining Language Change. Harlow: Pearson Education. Google Scholar

  • Darwin, Charles. 1871. The descent of man. London: Murray. Google Scholar

  • Dawkins, Richard. 1976. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University press. Google Scholar

  • Dennett, Daniel. 2003. Freedom evolves. New York City: Viking. Google Scholar

  • Hadikin, Glenn. 2014. Korean English: a corpus driven study of a New English. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar

  • Hoey, Michael. 2005. Lexical Priming: a new theory of words and language. London: Routledge. Google Scholar

  • Hull, David. 1988. Science as a process: an evolutionary account of the social and conceptual development of science. Chicago: University of Chicago press. Google Scholar

  • Jablonka, Eva, Anna Zeligowski & Marion J. Lamb. 2014. Evolution in Four Dimensions : Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life. Cambridge, MA: MIT press. Google Scholar

  • Kilgariff, Adam, Pavel Rychly, Pavel Smrz et al. 2004. The Sketch Engine. In Proceedings of Euralex 2004, Lorient, France, 6-10 July, 105-116. Google Scholar

  • Kirby, Simon. 2007. The Evolution of Meaning-space Structure through Iterated Learning. In Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on the Emergence and Evolution of Linguistic Communication, University of Hertfordshire, 12-15 April, http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~simon/Papers/Kirby/kirby%20aisb%20v2.pdf (accessed 5th April 2015). Google Scholar

  • Martincorena, Iñigo, Aswin Seshasayee & Nicholas Luscombe. 2012. Evidence of non- random mutation rates suggests an evolutionary risk management strategy. Nature 485 (7396). 95-98. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • node. In Oxford English Dictionary. 2014. Google Scholar

  • Pagel, Mark. 2009. Human language as a culturally transmitted replicator. Nature reviews: genetics 10. 405-415. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Sinclair, John. 1996. The search for units of meaning. Textus 9. 75-106. Google Scholar

  • Sinclair, John. 1998. The lexical item. In Edda Weigand (ed.) Contrastive Lexical Semantics. 1-24. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Swadesh, Morris. 1952. Lexico-statistic dating of prehistoric ethnic contacts. In Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 96(4). 453-463. Google Scholar

  • Williams, Geoffrey. 1998. Collocational networks: interlocking patterns of lexis in a corpus of plant biology research articles. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 3(1). 151-171. Google Scholar

  • Wray, Alison. 2002. Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar

  • Wray, Alison. 2008. Formulaic Language: pushing the boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2014-09-15

Accepted: 2015-05-27

Published Online: 2015-06-25

Citation Information: Open Linguistics, Volume 1, Issue 1, ISSN (Online) 2300-9969, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2015-0013.

Export Citation

© 2015 Glenn Hadikin. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. BY-NC-ND 3.0

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Andy Thorpe, Russell Craig, Glenn Hadikin, and Sasa Batistic
Research Evaluation, 2018, Volume 27, Number 2, Page 53

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in