Advertisement

Sudden (Saltationist) Approaches to Language Evolution

  • Ljiljana Progovac
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Linguistics book series (SBIL)

Abstract

Many researchers have advocated an abrupt, saltationist view of language evolution, including, but not limited to: Berwick (1998), Bickerton (1990, 1998), Lightfoot (1991), Chomsky (2002, 2005), Berwick and Chomsky (2011, 2016), Piattelli-Palmarini (2010), Piattelli-Palmarini and Uriagereka (2004, 2011), Moro (2008), Hornstein (2009), Miyagawa (2017), Miyagawa et al. (2014), Di Sciullo (2013). In this chapter I consider in some detail two such approaches to language evolution: Berwick and Chomsky’s all or nothing saltationist approach is discussed in Sect. 2.2, and Miyagawa’s approach, which allows some continuity, is discussed in Sect. 2.3. For each approach, I consider how it addresses the Five Problems identified in Chap.  1.

Keywords

Continuity with other species Grammatical/functional categories Minimalist Program Saltationist approaches 

References

  1. Berwick, R. C. (1998). Language evolution and the minimalist program: The origins of syntax. In J. R. Hurford, M. Studdert-Kennedy, & C. Knight (Eds.), Approaches to the evolution of language: Social and cognitive bases (pp. 320–340). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Berwick, R. C. (2011). All you need is merge: Biology, computation, and language form from the bottom-up. In A. M. Di Sciullo & C. Boeckx (Eds.), The Biolinguistics Enterprise: New perspectives on the evolution and nature of the human language faculty (pp. 461–491). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Berwick, R., & Chomsky, N. (2011). The Biolinguistic Program. The current state of its development. In A.M. Di Sciullo, & C. Boeckx (Eds.), The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New perspectives on the evolution and nature of the human language faculty (pp. 19–41). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Berwick, R., & Chomsky, N. (2016). Why only us? language and evolution. Cambridge, MA and London, England: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bickerton, D. (1990). Language and species. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bickerton, D. (1995). Language and human behavior. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bickerton, D. (1998). Catastrophic evolution: The case for a single step from protolanguage to full human language. In J. R. Hurford, M. Studdert-Kennedy, & C. Knight (Eds.), Approaches to the evolution of language: Social and cognitive bases (pp. 341–358). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bickerton, D. (2014). More than nature needs: Language, mind, and evolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bochnak, M. R. (2013). Cross-linguistic variation in the semantics of comparatives (Ph.D. dissertation). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  10. Bošković, Ž. (2008). What will you have, DP or NP? In M. Walkow, & E. Elfner (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS 37 (pp. 101–114). Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
  11. Brain, W. R., & Bannister, R. (1992). Clinical neurology (7th ed.). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Burling, R. (2005). The talking ape: How language evolved. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by step: Essays on Minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–155). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Chomsky, N. (2002). On nature and language. A. Belletti, & L. Rizzi (Eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  15. Chomsky, N. (2005). Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2008). Language as shaped by the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31, 489–558.Google Scholar
  17. Clark, B. (2013). Syntactic theory and the evolution of syntax. Biolinguistics, 7, 169–197.Google Scholar
  18. Deacon, T. W. (1997). The symbolic species. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  19. Dediu, D., & Ladd, D. R. (2007). Linguistic tone is related to the population frequency of the adaptive haplogroups of two brain size genes, ASPM and Microcephalin. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 104, 10944–10949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Di Sciullo, A.-M. (2013). Exocentric compounds, language and proto-language. Language and Information Society, 20, 1–26.Google Scholar
  21. Epstein, D. S., Kitahara, H., & Seely, D. (2010). Uninterpretable features: What are they and what do they do? In M. T. Putnam (Ed.), Exploring crash-proof grammars (pp. 125–142). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fitch, W. T. (2008). Co-evolution of phylogeny and glossogeny: There is no “logical problem of language evolution”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31(5), 521–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Greenfield, P. M., & Savage-Rumbaugh, S. (1990). Language and intelligence in monkeys and apes. In S. T. Parker & K. R. Gibson (Eds.), Grammatical combination in pan paniscus: Process of learning and invention in the evolution and development of language (pp. 540–579). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Harris, E. E. (2015). Ancestors in our Genome: The New Science of Human Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hornstein, N. (2009). A theory of syntax: Minimal operations and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hurford, J. R. (2007). The origins of meaning: Language in the light of evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Johnson, D. E., & Lappin, S. (1999). Local constraints vs. economy. CSLI Publications: Stanford Monographs in Linguistics.Google Scholar
  28. Kotchoubey, B. (2005). Pragmatics, prosody, and evolution: Language is more than a symbolic system. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 28, 136–137.Google Scholar
  29. Lightfoot, D. (1991). Subjacency and sex. Language & Communication, 11, 67–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Linnankoski, I., Laakso, M., Aulanko, R., & Leinonen, L. (1994). Recognition of emotions in macaque vocalizations by children and adults. Language & Communication, 14, 183–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McBrearty, S. (2007). Down with the revolution. In P. Mellars, K. Boyle, O. Bar-Yosef, & C. Stringer (Eds.), Rethinking the human revolution: New behavioral and biological perspectives on the origin and dispersal of modern humans (pp. 133–151). University of Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archeological Research.Google Scholar
  32. McBrearty, S., & Brooks, A. (2000). The revolution that wasn’t: A new interpretation of the origin of modern human behavior. Journal of Human Evolution, 39, 453–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mellars, P. (2002). Archeology and the origins of modern humans: European and African perspectives. In T. J. Crow (Ed.), The speciation of modern homo sapiens (pp. 31–47). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Mellars, P. (2007). Introduction: Rethinking the human revolution: Eurasian and African perspectives. In P. Mellars, K. Boyle, O. Bar-Yosef, & C. Stringer (Eds.), Rethinking the human revolution: New behavioral and biological perspectives on the origin and dispersal of modern humans (pp. 1–11). University of Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archeological Research.Google Scholar
  35. Miyagawa, S. (2017). Integration Hypothesis: A parallel model of language development in evolution. In S. Watanabe, M.A. Hofman, & T. Shimizu (Eds.), Evolution of the brain, cognition, and emotion in vertebrates (pp. 225–250). Brain Science Series. Springer Japan.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-56559-8_11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Miyagawa, S., Ojima, S., Berwick, R.C., & Okanoya, K. (2014). The integration hypothesis of human language evolution and the nature of contemporary languages. Frontiers in Psychology, 5,  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00564.
  37. Moro, A. (2008). The boundaries of babel: The brain and the enigma of impossible languages. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pfenning, A. R., Hara, E., Whitney, O., Rivas, M. V., & Jarvis, E. D. (2014). Convergent transcriptional specializations in the brains of humans and song learning birds. Science, 346, 1256846.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1256846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (2010). What is language, that it may have evolved, and what is evolution, that it may apply to language? In R. K. Larson, V. Deprez, & H. Yamakido (Eds.), The Evolution of human language: Biolinguistic perspectives (pp. 148–162). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Piattelli-Palmarini, M., & Uriagereka, J. (2004). Immune syntax: The evolution of the language virus. In L. Jenkins (Ed.), Variation and universals in biolinguistics (pp. 341–377). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  41. Piattelli-Palmarini, M., & Uriagereka, J. (2011). A geneticist’s dream, a linguist’s nightmare: The case of FOXP2 gene. In A. M. Di Sciullo & C. Boeckx (Eds.), The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New perspectives on the evolution and nature of the human language faculty (pp. 100–125). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Pinker, S., & Bloom, P. (1990). Natural language and natural selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13, 707–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Progovac, L. (2009). Sex and syntax: Subjacency revisited. Biolinguistics, 3(2–3), 305–336.Google Scholar
  44. Progovac, L. (2015). Evolutionary syntax. Oxford studies in the evolution of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Progovac, L. (2016). Review of Robert Berwick and Noam Chomsky’s 2016 book Why only us: Language and evolution, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Language, 92.4, 992–996.Google Scholar
  46. Progovac, L. (2017). Where is continuity likely to be found? Commentary on The social origins of language by Robert M. Seyfarth and Dorothy L. Cheney (pp. 46-61). Edited and introduced by Michael Platt. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pulvermüller, F. (2002). The neuroscience of language: On brain circuits of words and serial order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax (Ph.D. dissertation). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  49. Tallerman, M. (2016). Against the emergent view of language evolution. In S. Robert, C. Cuskley, L. McCrohon, L. Barceló-Coblijn, O. Fehér, & T. Verhoef (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on the Evolution of Language (pp. 303–310, New Orleans, March 21–24, 2016). Available online: http://evolang.org/neworleans/.

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Linguistics DepartmentWayne State UniversityDetroitUSA

Personalised recommendations