the evolution of language - eszterházy károly...

The Evolution of Language


The topic called “evolution of language”

1

1 The topic called “evolution of language” Questions about the “evolution of language” cannot be pursued without

first clarifying what we mean by “language.”

“The subject “evolution of language” is a very fashionable one… There are a few

problems about it. One problem is that the topic doesn’t exist. Small problem…

Furthermore, everyone knows it doesn’t exist. Evolution involves changes in the

genomic characters of the organism. Languages are not organisms, they don’t

have genomes, they don’t evolve. Languages change, but they don’t evolve.

What evolves is the language capacity of users of language, i.e., human beings…

suppose a biologist submitted a paper on the evolution of the eye. Consider that

he has no idea of what an eye is and says that an eye is maybe something that you

use to watch television. People would laugh. You couldn’t submit a paper like

that. But that is exactly what the literature on the evolution of language is about.

It doesn’t tell you what they think language is, just that language is something

used for communication, which is about like saying that an eye is used to watch

television.” (Chomsky sa:221–222, bold mine)


Three main questions in the study of language

2

2 Three main questions in the study of language

The three main questions in the study of language since the cognitive

revolution: What is language? How is it acquired? and How did it evolve?

The fundamental biolinguistic question:

“The most fundamental question in the study of the human language

faculty is its place in the natural world: what kind of biological system it is,

and how it relates to other systems in our own species and others.” (PJ:202)


The study of the evolution of language

3

3 The study of the evolution of language

“The empirical study of the evolution of language is beset with difficulties.

Linguistic behavior does not fossilize…” (HCF:1571)

““language” does not fossilize” (FHC:185)


Two central questions in the study of the evolution of FL

4

4 Two central questions in the study of the evolution of FL

Which aspects of the faculty of language (FL) are specific to language,

therefore central to FL, and which aspects are “exaptations” from other

human cognitive or non-cognitive systems? For example, the linguistic

functions of the “speech organs” (teeth, tongue, vocal folds, etc.) are each

a secondary “exaptation” from more basic, nonlinguistic biological

functions.

Which aspects of FL are specific to humans, and which aspects are shared

with nonhuman animals? For example, is the permanently descended

larynx a specific human trait? (No.) Or is it also found in some

nonhuman animals? (Yes.) Is discrete infinity unique to human

cognition? (Yes.) Or is there any evidence for discrete infinity in

nonhuman animal cognition? (No.)


Central issues in the study of the evolution of FL

5

5 Central issues in the study of the evolution of FL

1 Apparent discontinuity between animal “communication”

systems and human language (How did we get from there to here?)

Natural language is sharply different in quality from nonhuman

“communication” (or signaling) systems (HCF). Expressive power; open-

ended: potentially infinite, recursive; “arbitrariness of signs;” “double

articulation, duality of structure;” “displacement;” “structure-

dependence.” “Propositional thought” (Hinzen 2007).



6

2 Language evolution: gradual or saltational?

Gradualism vs. Discontinuity (Fitch 2010, HCF); “perhaps the oldest

argument in evolutionary theory” (Fitch 2010:46); gradual change vs.

saltation; gradualists vs. saltationists (Fitch 2010)

Two alternatives:

1 Apparent discontinuity is real. The evolution of language was saltational.

The appearance of language was a Great Leap Forward (Chomsky 2004,

2007)

2 Gradual change despite apparent discontinuity; no discontinuities

during the evolution of language



7

3 Continuity versus exaptation

Did human language evolve

“by gradual extension of preexisting communication systems” (the

continuity view), or

“important aspects of language have been exapted away from their

previous adaptive function (e.g., spatial or numerical reasoning,

Machiavellian social scheming, tool-making)” (the exaptation view)

(HCF)



8

Exaptation (formerly called “preadaptation”)

“putting old parts to new uses” (Fitch 2010:63); “shifts in function” (ibid.,

64); “adaptation of an old organ to a new function” (Pinker 1997:171).

insect wings and bird feathers exapted for flight, from their original

function of thermoregulation (Pinker and Bloom 1990, Pinker 1997)

the famous permanently descended larynx in humans, which begins to

slowly descend at age three months, reaching its low position at the age

of four years, and descends a second time in boys around puberty (Fitch

2010:308–328).



9

4 What is language “for” (if anything)?

Is language an adaptation for communication?

Chomsky, Fitch and Hauser: No. Pinker and Jackendoff: Yes.

Pinker and Jackendoff: “the language faculty evolved in the human lineage

for the communication of complex propositions.” (PJ:204)

“language is a complex adaptation for communication which evolved

piecemeal” (PJ: 201)

Human language as a spandrel (Chomsky, Fitch and Hauser)



10

Spandrels is architecture



11



12

Spandrels in evolutionary biology

A spandrel is a byproduct, “the appearance of some new feature as an

automatic, unselected byproduct.” Spandrels are different from

exaptations in that “spandrels originally had no function” (Fitch 2010:65).

For example, masculinized “male-mimicking” genitalia in female spotted

hyenas (Gould 1997).



13



14

FLN, the faculty of language in the narrow sense, may be a non-adaptive

spandrel (HCF:1573). “We consider the possibility that certain specific

aspects of the faculty of language are “spandrels”—by-products of

preexisting constraints rather than end products of a history of natural

selection” (HCF:1574).



15

5 What IS language (anyway)? What does “language” mean in discussions about its evolution?

Chomsky, Fitch, Hauser:

Faculty of Language in the broad

sense FLB

Language = Faculty of Language

Faculty of Language in the narrow

sense FLN

Language is composed of a “myriad component mechanisms,” which

“include both peripheral mechanisms necessary for the externalization of

language, and core linguistic computational/cognitive mechanisms”

(FHC:181).


Faculty of language in the broad sense (FLB) and in the narrow sense (FLN)

16

6 Faculty of language in the broad sense (FLB) and in the

narrow sense (FLN)

(HCF:1570)



17

FLB: sensory-motor system

conceptual-intentional system

“computational mechanisms for recursion, providing the capacity to

generate an infinite range of expressions from a finite set of elements”

(=FLN)

much of it is shared with nonhuman animals

FLN: recursion: the capacity to generate an infinite range of expressions from a

finite set of elements; “the abstract linguistic computational system alone,

independent of the other systems with which it interacts and interfaces”

(HCF)

apparently unique to man

“a core property of FLN is recursion…, [which] yields discrete infinity”

(HCF:1571)



18

Relation between FLN and FLB FLB imposes limitations and conditions on the “usage of the system”, i.e.

FLN (HCF:1571).

“FLN may approximate a kind of “optimal solution” to the problem of

linking the sensory-motor and conceptual-intentional systems. In other

words, the generative processes of the language system may provide a

near-optimal solution that satisfies the interface conditions to FLB”

(HCF:1574).

Evolution of FLN “The question is whether particular components of the functioning of FLN

are adaptations for language, specifically acted upon by natural selection—

or, even more broadly, whether FLN evolved for reasons other than

communication” (HCF:1574).


“Which aspects of language are uniquely human and uniquely linguistic”? (PJ:201)

19

7 “Which aspects of language are uniquely human and

uniquely linguistic”? (PJ:201) FHC: “Something about the faculty of language must be unique in order to explain

the differences between humans and other animals—if only the particular

combination of mechanisms in FLB. We thus made the further, and independent,

terminological proposal to denote that subset of FLB that is both specific to

language and to humans as FLN… FLN is composed of those components of the

overall faculty of language (FLB) that are both unique to humans and unique to

or clearly specialized for language. The contents of FLN are to be empirically

determined. Possible outcomes of this empirical endeavor include that ALL

components of FLB are shared either with other species, or with other non-

linguistic cognitive domains in humans, and only their combination and

organization are unique to humans and language. Alternatively, FLN may turn

out to include a very rich set of interconnected mechanisms, as assumed in many

earlier versions of generative grammar.” (FHC:182, bold mine)

HCF: one uniquely human aspect only: recursion.

PJ:201: “We find the hypothesis problematic.”



20

7.1 Vocal imitation: uniquely human and specific to language or

shared? Vocal imitation: present in man and birds, but virtually absent in apes and

monkeys (HCF:1574–75)

Vocal imitation (vocal dialects) in birds, dolphins, whales AND humans

(HCF).

Acquisition of birdsong: critical period, “babbling”/ “subsong” phase

(HCF). Acquisition of language by children: critical period, babbling

phase.

HCF: Vocal imitation is not uniquely human, but shared ( FLB, not

FLN)



21

Caveats:

No vocal imitation in primates or monkeys. ()

() Vocal imitation and song acquisition by birds vs. vocal imitation and

language acquisition by human children: analogs, not homologs (HCF).

PJ: Vocal imitation by humans is not shared but uniquely human and

specific to language. Vocal imitation in birds, cetaceans and humans had

to evolve separately. Speech perception and production are evolutionary

adaptations for language.


Is language “perfect but useless” or “useful but imperfect”? (cf. PJ:229)

22

8 Is language “perfect but useless” or “useful but imperfect”?

(cf. PJ:229) “Chomsky’s recent claims about language have it backwards. Rather than

being useless but perfect, language is useful but imperfect, just like other

biological systems” (PJ:229).

“offering an adaptive hypothesis as an alternative to our hypothesis

concerning mechanisms is a logical error, as questions of function are

independent of those concerning mechanism.” (FHC:179)


Adaptation

23

9 Adaptation “The term ‘adaptation’ conceals a conceptual minefield… Definitions run

from diachronic and historical… to purely synchronic and contemporary…

[Therefore,] Without further specification, the statement that “language is

an adaptation” is thus vague enough to have few empirical consequences.”

(FHC:184)

It is easy to misunderstand adaptation. And it regularly happens in

various ways.


Adaptation

24

9.1 Some outstanding misunderstandings of adaptation

9.1.1 Lamarckism

Perhaps the most famous, or infamous, kind of misunderstanding is the

one known as Lamarckism, named after the French biologist Lamarck

(1744–1829), and adopted, at least in part, by Piaget, who was perhaps the

second most famous Lamarckist after Lamarck himself. Lamarckism is the

naïve view that adaptive properties which an organism acquires in its

lifetime may be passed on to offspring, which explains, or, was intended to

explain, how a species may become more and more successful or adaptive

over an extended period of time.


Adaptation

25

9.1.2 Panadaptationism

A second, slightly different, kind of misunderstanding is called

panadaptationism (cf. Fitch 2010). This is the mistaken belief that all of the

properties of an organism are adaptations. The idea that “every aspect of

animal form is an adaptation” translates into ordinary English as the idea

that everything is the way it should be (cf. Fitch 2010:65).

“It would be absurd to suggest that every detail of organismic form or

behavior is an adaptation, or even “adaptive” in the everyday sense of

serving some useful function.” (Fitch 2010:66)

“adaptation (meaning a close fit between innately guided complex form

and complex function) is a process that at present admits of just one

explanatory entity: natural selection (including sexual, kin, and in some

cases perhaps group, selection as special cases).” (Fitch 2010:66)

“it is misleading to ask whether “language,” as a whole, is an adaptation”

(Fitch 2010:66).


Adaptation

26

9.1.3 “Folk theory of evolution”

The folk theory of evolution regards evolution not as a tinkerer, without

planning or foresight, but as an engineer, who plans with foresight (cf.

Fitch 2010). But “Evolution has no foresight, and selection must wait until

a… mutant appears by chance” and then decide whether to allow it tosurvive, i.e. select it, or destroy it (Fitch 2010:58).


Summary and conclusions

27

10 Summary and conclusions Most questions about the design and evolution of language remain open. This is

not surprising, given that, for all the advances in the biological sciences over the

past few decades, many, perhaps all, similar questions of biological design and

evolution as they apply to human beings and, more generally, to other organisms,

are equally open. Virtually nothing is known about animal cognition, which

could explain, for example, why a cockroach turns left when it does, or why

honey bees dance the way they do, etc.

Gradualist accounts do not seem to be able to bridge the gap between humans

and nonhuman animals. The human language faculty remains discontinuous

with animal communication systems. Gradualist attempts to reduce the apparent

discontinuity to piecemeal evolution by natural selection are mostly speculative

in absence of empirical evidence. Language does not fossilize, therefore

hypothetical protolanguages remain, probably forever, unsupported by empirical

evidence.


References

28

References Chomsky, N. [2012]. A Conversation with Noam Chomsky: New Insights on

Old Foundations. Edited by Valentina Bambini, Cristiano Chesi, and

Andrea Moro. Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori di Pavia. (online

at: www.phenomenologyandmind.eu/wp.../16_Intervista-CHOMSKY.pdf‎)

Chomsky, N. 2004. Biolinguistics and the human capacity. Lecture at MTA,

Budapest, May 17, 2004.

Chomsky, N. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry

36:1–22.

Chomsky, N. 2006. Biolinguistics and the human capacity, in Chomsky

2006:173–185.

Chomsky, N. 2006. Language and Mind. 3rd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Chomsky, N. 2007. Of minds and language. Biolinguistics 1:9–27.

Fitch, W. T. 2010. The Evolution of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.


References

29

Gould, S. J. 1997. The exaptive excellence of spandrels as a term and

prototype. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 94, pp. 10750–10755.

HCF = Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., and Fitch, W. T. 2002. The Faculty of

Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve? Science 298:

1569–1579.

Hinzen, W. 2007. An Essay on Names and Truth. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Johansson, S. 2013. The Talking Neanderthals: What Do Fossils, Genetics,

and Archeology Say? Biolinguistics 7: 35–74.

Gould, S. J. and Lewontin, R. C. 1979. The spandrels of San Marco and the

panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme.

Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Vol. 205, no. 1161,

581-598.

Pinker, S. & Bloom, P. 1990. Natural language and natural selection.

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13 (4): 707–784.


References

30

PJ = Pinker, S. & Jackendoff, R. 2004. The faculty of language: what’s

special about it? Cognition 95:201–236.

Pinker, S. 1997. How the Mind Works. London: Penguin.

Pléh, Cs. 2013. A megismeréstudomány alapjai. Budapest: Typotex.

the evolution of language - eszterházy károly...

Documents