Abstract
Relying on the proposals and discussions in the first three chapters, in Sect. 4.2 I consider how a specific sexual selection scenario for the emergence of (simple) syntax would have affected and started to solidify the genetic foundation for language, addressing directly the language-genes dimension. Section 4.3 reports on the recent genetic developments and discoveries, of direct relevance to brain evolution, addressing the brain-gene dimension. Section 4.4 reports on the results of some specific neuroimaging experiments designed to test the role of the brain in the processing of simpler (fossil) vs. more complex syntax, engaging the language-brain dimension, in the light of evolution. The goal of this chapter is to make it clear that evolution (via selection) is a force which can bring these three dimensions together, and most probably the only force that can achieve that. Finally, with all this in mind, Sect. 4.5 returns to the question of whether other species, such as Neanderthals, may have had some form of language, and provides a fragment of the type of language that it would have been. Section 4.6 concludes this monograph.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
The third argument, as discussed and countered in Sect. 2.2, has to do with there not being enough time for selection to influence the evolution of language.
- 2.
Displacement, roughly characterizable as the ability to communicate about things that are not in the here-and-now, is commonly thought to be one of the design features of human language (see e.g. Hockett 1960). This is the sense in which the term “displacement” is used here. The reader should note that the same term is also used by linguists to refer to a completely different phenomenon, to the rearrangement of constituents within a sentence, as a result of the syntactic operation Move, as briefly discussed in Sect. 2.2.
- 3.
This is not to say that languages today do not rely on context. They still do, and to a large extent, but with transitive/hierarchical syntax, the role of context can be reduced, at least in this one relevant respect. Focusing on the communicative benefits of syntactic elaboration is not, as it is sometimes portrayed, about ignoring or diminishing the relevance of pragmatics. Not at all. Rather, it is about isolating the contribution of syntax, so that its place in the totality of language, including its complex interactions with pragmatics, can be better defined.
- 4.
As mentioned above, the point here is not so much that evolution of syntax had to have happened in this exact way, but Progovac’s reconstruction has at least identified a plausible scenario which would have led to this kind of breakthrough, and which directly engages the language-gene dimension, as further discussed in Sect. 4.4.
- 5.
See also Miller (2000) for arguments in favor of invoking sexual selection to shed light on a variety of cognitive abilities in humans.
- 6.
Mohr (2013) provides a documented history of obscene, vulgar language, demonstrating how, in medieval times and beyond, many of the words for body parts and bodily functions were completely appropriate to use. She also discusses the use of such language in writing in public spaces, in Roman times, 2000 years ago, and suggests that such use of vulgar expressions correlates with a much less strict sense of privacy in performing bodily functions, as well as in covering body parts with clothing. Whatever we might think of this kind of language today, it played a much bigger role in the ancient times. Mohr also emphasizes the use of such language to inflict insult upon another, clearly evident as far back as the Roman times, and certainly stretching into the modern era as well.
- 7.
I am not claiming here that either size or eye color are adaptations brought about by sexual selection alone, or even primarily, as they may well be adaptations for other purposes as well. The argument is simply that these traits may also, or in addition, be subject to sexual selection, i.e. mate choice.
- 8.
As Fitch (2017, 17) mentions, in addition to a general size expansion, there were particular expansions of brain regions, both in raw size and in terms of connectivity, which have long been known to play an important role in linguistic syntax.
- 9.
The recent findings regarding FOXP2 gene have converged on the conclusion that it is certainly not the “grammar gene” or even the “language gene,” given that it is expressed not only in multiple areas of the brain, but also in other organs, serving a variety of functions. Moreover, most common cases of developmental language disorders that entail grammatical impairment do not involve mutations in FOXP2 (Rakhlin and Grigorenko 2014). Still, FOXP2 is clearly part of the genetic network relevant to language, even if it is providing a small contribution, consistent with the many-genes-with-small-effects framework.
- 10.
According to Voight et al. (2006) and Christiansen and Chater (2008), human genome-wide scans have revealed evidence of recent positive selection for more than 250 genes, at least some of which may be relevant for genetic adaptations for language, consistent with the many-genes-with-small-effects model.
- 11.
In fact, monogenetic language impairments are rare, as the majority of cases of developmental language disorders do not involve just one major single causal gene, but rather a constellation of genes, each exerting only a modest effect, raising the risk of a language disorder in an individual by a small percent (Rakhlin and Grigorenko 2014).
- 12.
These studies have also tested the processing of verb-noun compounds (e.g. turn-coat; spoil-sport) in contrast to the hierarchical compounds (e.g. boot-lick-er; party-poop-er), in both English and Serbian, but the results of these conditions have not been analyzed yet.
- 13.
During my many discussions with colleagues on this topic, what surprised me the most was the expectation that the solution to the puzzle of language evolution would need to be straightforward and elegant, with the proof offered in one stroke. I believe that the frequent claims that we cannot prove or disprove anything about language evolution, and that therefore we should not study it (Sect. 1.1), come partly from this expectation. Needless to say, I have no such expectation. I am convinced, in fact, that a lot of tinkering, experimenting, and trial and error will be needed in our attempts to reach a better understanding. But both the journey there, and any insights gleaned on the way, are fully worth it.
- 14.
Even though their 2016 book is titled Why only us (perhaps ambiguously so, but I suspect that the intended reading is that we humans are the only ones to have had language), Berwick and Chomsky seem to have shifted their view, now no longer claiming that Neanderthals could not have had language (Sect. 2.2).
- 15.
H. erectus spread as far as England, Georgia, India, Sri Lanka, China, and Java. While it is tempting to tie this achievement to the emergence of some language abilities, McBrearty (2007, 140), points out that no genetic mutation enhancing intelligence was necessary for hominins to migrate out of Africa, given that faunal exchanges between Africa and Asia have occurred sporadically since the land bridge at Sinai was established 17 million years ago. Finlayson (2009) also notes that having language in place, or a large brain, is not a necessary prerequisite for dispersions of this kind to take place.
- 16.
In this respect, note that the size of their brains surpasses that of human brains. Finlayson (2009) in fact points out that the distinctions between H. habilis, H. erectus, H. sapiens, and other hominins are not as clear-cut as is typically assumed. The disappearance of Neanderthals does not necessarily have anything to do with their language skills, or the lack thereof. There were great human civilizations that disappeared in spite of having language, and there are also many species around us today that have survived without language.
- 17.
There may be another possible scenario for the timeline, which would allow for a different timing of hierarchical syntax. Namely, it is possible that hierarchical syntax emerged independently among different populations in Africa, and that, as these different populations migrated to different parts of the world, they brought with them these diverse hierarchical grammars. According to Stringer (2007, 17) and Finlayson (2009), there are still many uncertainties about hominin timeline and dispersals. Stringer mentions that there might have been an African version of multiregionalism, citing “growing molecular evidence of deep divisions within African populations.”
- 18.
Deacon (1997) hypothesizes that symbolic language has been accruing from around the time that the Austrolopithecines were replaced by the hominins, some two million years ago, when our ancestors became bipedal, freeing up their hands for tool use and gesture, and when brains expanded significantly. He notes that in the australopithecine-hominin transition, our brains did not get bigger proportionately, but, rather, it was the forebrain, particularly the cerebellum and the cerebral cortex, which ballooned the most.
References
Ansaldo, U., Lai, J., Jia, F., Siok, W. T., Tan, L. H., & Matthews, S. (2015). Neural basis for processing hidden complexity indexed by small and finite clauses in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 33, 118–127.
Ardila, A., Bernal, B., & Rosselli, M. (2016a). How localized are language brain areas? A review of Brodmann areas involvement in oral language. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 31(1), 112–122.
Ardila, A., Bernal, B., & Rosselli, M. (2016b). Why Broca’s area damage does not result in classical Broca’s aphasia. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00249.
Berwick, R., & Chomsky, N. (2016). Why only us? Language and evolution. Cambridge, MA and London, England: MIT Press.
Bickerton, D. (2014). More than nature needs: Language, mind, and evolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Burling, R. (2005). The talking ape: How language evolved. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2008). Language as shaped by the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31, 489–558.
Citko, B. (2011). Symmetry in syntax: Merge, move, and labels. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Code, C. (2005). First in, last out? The evolution of aphasic lexical speech automatisms to agrammatism and the evolution of human communication. Interaction Studies, 6, 311–334.
Darwin, C. (1872). The expression of the emotions in man and animals. London: John Murray.
Darwin, C. M. A. (1874). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex (New edn., revised and augmented). New York: Hurst and Company.
Dawkins, R. (1996). The blind watchmaker: Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.
Deacon, T. W. (1997). The symbolic species. New York: Norton.
Deacon, T. W. (2003). Multilevel selection in a complex adaptive system: The problem of language origins. In W. H. Bruce & D. J. Depew (Eds.), Evolution and learning: The Baldwin Effect reconsidered (pp. 81–106). A Bradford Book. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Dediu, D. (2015). An introduction to genetics for language scientists: Current concepts, methods, and findings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Dediu, D., & Levinson, S. C. (2013). On the antiquity of language: The reinterpretation of Neandertal linguistic capacities and its consequences. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 397. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00397.
Diller, K.C., & Cann, R.L. (2013). Genetics, evolution, and the innateness of language. In R. Botha & M. Everaert (Eds.), The Evolutionary Emergence of Language (244-258). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Draganski, B., Kherif, F., Klöppel, S., Cook, P. A., Alexander, D. C., Parker, G. J. M., et al. (2008). Evidence for segregated and integrative connectivity patterns in the human basal ganglia. The Journal of Neuroscience, 28, 7143–7152.
Eldredge, N., & Gould, S. J. (1972). Punctuated equilibria: An alternative to phyletic gradualism. In T. J. M. Schopf (Ed.), Models in paleobiology (pp. 82–115). San Francisco: Freeman Cooper.
Enard, W., Przeworski, M., Fisher, S. E., Lai, C. S. L., Wiebe, V., Kitano, T., et al. (2002). Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language. Nature, 418, 869–872.
Enard, W., Gehre, S., Hammerschmidt, K., Hölter, S. M., Blass, T., & Somel, M., et al. (2009). A humanized version of FOXP2 affects cortico-basal ganglia circuits in mice. Cell 137, 961–967.
Finlayson, C. (2009). The humans who went extinct: Why Neanderthals died out and we survived. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fisher, S. E. (2017). Evolution of language: Lessons from the genome. Psychonomic Bulletin Review, 24, 34–40.
Fisher, S. E., Vargha-Khadem, F., Watkins, K. E., Monaco, A. P., & Pembrey, M. E. (1998). Localization of a gene implicated in a severe speech and language disorder. Nature Genetics, 18, 168–170.
Fitch, W. T. (2010). The evolution of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fitch, W. T. (2017). Empirical approaches to the study of language evolution. Psychonomic Bulletin Review, 24, 3–33.
Fitch, W. T., & Reby, D. (2001). The descended larynx is not uniquely human. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 268, 1669–1675. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2001.1704.
Gibson, K. R. (1996). The ontogeny and evolution of the brain, cognition, and language. In A. Lock & C. R. Peters (Eds.), Handbook of human symbolic evolution (pp. 407–431). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Gopnik, M. (1990). Feature-blind grammar and dysphasia. Nature, 344, 715.
Gopnik, M., & Crago, M. B. (1991). Familial aggregation of a developmental language disorder. Cognition, 39, 1–50.
Gould, S. J., & Eldredge, N. (1977). Punctuated equilibria: The tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered. Paleobiology, 3, 115–151.
Harris, E. E. (2015). Ancestors in our genome: The new science of human evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hillert, D. (2014). The nature of language: Evolution, paradigms and circuits. New York: Springer.
Hockett, C. F. (1960). The origin of speech. Scientific American, 203, 88–96.
Jay, T. (1980). Sex roles and dirty word usage: A review of the literature and a reply to Haas. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 614–621.
Kos, M., van den Brink, D., Snijders, T. M., Rijpkema, M., Franke, B., Fernandez, G., et al. (2012). CNTNAP2 and language processing in healthy individuals as measured with ERPs. PLoS ONE, 7, e46995.
Krause, J., Lalueza-Fox, C., Orlando, L., Enard, W., Green, R., Burbano, H., et al. (2007). The derived FOXP2 variant of modern humans was shared with Neanderthals. Current Biology, 17(1–5), 53–60.
Lieberman, P. (2000). Human language and our reptilian brain: The subcortical bases of speech, syntax, and thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lieberman, P. (2009). FOXP2 and human cognition. Cell, 137, 801–802.
Liégeois, F., Baldeweg, T., Connelly, A., Gadian, D. G., Mishkin, M., & Vargha-Khadem, F. (2003). Language fMRI abnormalities associated with FOXP2 gene mutation. Nature Neuroscience, 6(11), 1230–1237.
Little, H. (2016). Review of L. Progovac’s (2015) Evolutionary Syntax, Oxford University Press. Linguist List, April 7, 2016. Reviews editor: Helen Aristar-Dry.
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.
Miller, G. A. (2000). The mating mind: How sexual choice shaped the evolution of human nature. London: William Heinemann.
Mohr, M. (2013). Holy shit: A brief history of swearing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mortensen, D. (2014). Learning phonological ordering generalizations for Hmong elaborate expressions. Paper presented at the 2014 Linguistic Society of America (LSA) Meeting in Minneapolis.
Newbury, D. F., & Monaco, A. P. (2010). Genetic advances in the study of speech and language disorders. Neuron, 68, 309–320.
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.
Pinker, S., & Bloom, P. (1990). Natural language and natural selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13, 707–784.
Progovac, L. (2009). Sex and syntax: Subjacency revisited. Biolinguistics, 3(2–3), 305–336.
Progovac, L. (2010). Syntax: Its evolution and its representation in the brain. Biolinguistics, 4(2-3), 233–254.
Progovac, L. (2015). Evolutionary Syntax. Oxford Studies in the Evolution of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Progovac, L. (2016). A gradualist scenario for language evolution: Precise linguistic reconstruction of early human (and Neandertal) grammars. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1714. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01714.
Progovac, L., Rakhlin, N., Angell, W., Liddane, R., Tang, L., & Ofen, N. (2018). Diversity of grammars and their diverging evolutionary and processing paths: Evidence from Functional MRI study of Serbian. Frontiers in Psychology. Special Issue: Languages as Adaptive Systems, E. Aboh & U. Ansaldo (Eds.). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00278.
Rakhlin, N., & Grigorenko, E. (2014). (A)typical language development: Genetic and environmental influences. In R. Bahr & E. Silliman (Eds.), Handbook of communication disorders (pp. 11–21). Routledge.
Stone, L., & Lurquin, P. F. (2007). Genes, culture, and human evolution: A synthesis. Blackwell Publishing.
Stringer, C. (2007). The origin and dispersal of Homo sapiens: Our current state of knowledge. 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. 15–20). University of Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
Ullman, M. T. (2006). Is Broca’s area part of a basal ganglia thalamocortical circuit? Cortex, 42, 480–485.
Vargha-Khadem, F., Gadian, D. G., Copp, A., & Mishkin, M. (2005). FOXP2 and the neuroanatomy of speech and language. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6, 131–138.
Vernes, S. C., Spiteri, E., Nicod, J., Groszer, M., Taylor, J. M., Davies, K. E., et al. (2007). High-throughput analysis promoter occupancy reveals direct neural targets of FOXP2, a gene mutated in speech and language disorders. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 81, 1232–1250.
Vernes, S. C., Newbury, D. F., Abrahams, B. S., Winchester, L., Nicod, J., Groszer, M., et al. (2008). A functional genetic link between distinct developmental language disorders. The New England Journal of Medicine 359, 2337–2345. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa0802828.
Voight, B. F., Kudaravalli, S., Wen, X., & Pritchard, J. K. (2006). A map of recent positive selection in the human genome. PLOS Biology, 4(3), e72. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040072.
Weekley, E. (1916). Surnames. New York: E.P. Dutton & Co.
Whalley, H. C., O’Connell, G., Sussmann, J. E., Peel, A., Stanfield, A. C., Hayiou‐Thomas, M. E. (2011). Genetic variation in CNTNAP2 alters brain function during linguistic processing in healthy individuals. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part B-Neuropsychiatric Genetics B, 156, 941–948.
Whitehouse, A. J. O., Bishop, D. V. M., Ang, Q. W., Pennell, C. E., & Fisher, S. E. (2011). CNTNAP2 variants affect early language development in the general population. Genes Brain Behavior, 10, 451–456.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Progovac, L. (2019). Putting It All Together: The Language-Brain-Genes Loop. In: A Critical Introduction to Language Evolution. SpringerBriefs in Linguistics(). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03235-7_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03235-7_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-03234-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-03235-7
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)