We review Berwick and Chomsky's a book premised on language as an instrument primarily of thought, only secondarily of communication. The authors conclude that a Universal Grammar can be reduced to three biologically isolated components, whose computational system for syntax was the result of a single mutation that occurred about 80,000 years ago. We question that argument because it ignores the origin of words, even though Berwick and Chomsky acknowledge that words evolved before grammar. It also fails to explain what evolutionary problem language uniquely solved (Wallace's question). To answer that question, we review recent discoveries about the ontogeny and phylogeny of words. Ontogenetically, two modes of nonverbal relation between infant and mother begin at or within 6 months of birth that are crucial antecedents of the infant's first words: intersubjectivity and joint attention. Intersubjectivity refers to rhythmic shared affect between infant and caretaker(s) that develop during the first 6 months. When the infant begins to crawl, they begin to attend jointly to environmental objects. Phylogenetically, Hrdy and Bickerton describe aspects of ' ecology and cognition that facilitated the evolution of words. Hrdy shows how cooperative breeding established trust between infant and caretakers, laying the groundwork for a community of mutual trust among adults. Bickerton shows how 'confrontational scavenging' led to displaced reference, whereby an individual communicated the nature of a dead animal and its location to members of the group that could not see it. Thus, both phylogenetically and ontogenetically, the original function of language was primarily an instrument of communication. Rejecting Berwick and Chomsky's answer to Wallace's question that syntax afforded better planning and inference, we endorse Bickerton's view that language enabled speakers to refer to objects not immediately present. Thus arose context-free mental representations, unique to human language and thought.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6715309 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jole/lzx005 | DOI Listing |
PLoS Biol
November 2019
University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, United States of America.
In their Essay on the evolution of human language, Martins and Boeckx seek to refute what they call the "half-Merge fallacy"-the conclusion that the most elementary computational operation for human language syntax, binary set formation, or "Merge," evolved in a single step. We show that their argument collapses. It is based on a serious misunderstanding of binary set formation as well as formal language theory.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFNat Hum Behav
October 2017
Helmholtz Institute and Department of Psychology, Utrecht University, 3584 CH, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Language serves as a cornerstone of human cognition. However, our knowledge about its neural basis is still a matter of debate, partly because 'language' is often ill-defined. Rather than equating language with 'speech' or 'communication', we propose that language is best described as a biologically determined computational cognitive mechanism that yields an unbounded array of hierarchically structured expressions.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFWe review Berwick and Chomsky's a book premised on language as an instrument primarily of thought, only secondarily of communication. The authors conclude that a Universal Grammar can be reduced to three biologically isolated components, whose computational system for syntax was the result of a single mutation that occurred about 80,000 years ago. We question that argument because it ignores the origin of words, even though Berwick and Chomsky acknowledge that words evolved before grammar.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFTrends Cogn Sci
August 2017
Cognitive Neurobiology and Helmholtz Institute, Department of Psychology, Utrecht University, 3584 CH Utrecht, The Netherlands; Department of Zoology and St Catharine's College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK. Electronic address:
Front Psychol
March 2017
Department of English, Meiji Gakuin UniversityTokyo, Japan; Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridge, MA, USA.
Only humans possess the faculty of language that allows an infinite array of hierarchically structured expressions (Hauser et al., 2002; Berwick and Chomsky, 2015). Similarly, humans have a capacity for infinite natural numbers, while all other species seem to lack such a capacity (Gelman and Gallistel, 1978; Dehaene, 1997).
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!