Advertisement

Gradualist Approaches to Language Evolution

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

Abstract

Many researchers have advocated a gradualist view of language evolution, and syntax in particular, although not necessarily natural selection, including, but certainly not limited to: Givón (e.g. 1979, 2002a, b, 2009), Pinker and Bloom (1990) (see Sect.  1.3); Newmeyer (1991, 1998, 2005), Gil (2005), Jackendoff (1999, 2002), Culicover and Jackendoff (2005), Tallerman(2014, 2016), Heine and Kuteva (2007), Hurford (2007, 2012), Jӓger (2007), Progovac (2008, 2009, 2015a, 2016) [the reader is also referred to the introductory chapter of Heine and Kuteva (2007) for a good characterization and classification of a variety of earlier approaches to language evolution; see also Tallerman and Gibson (2012)]. In this chapter I consider in some detail a selection of such gradualist approaches to language evolution, looking for points of contact, and for potential for synergy, among these approaches. For each approach, I consider how it addresses the Five Problems established in Chap.  1.

Keywords

Cultural evolution Internal reconstruction Proto-syntax Proto-vocabulary Syntactic “fossils” 

References

  1. Aboh, E. (2009). Clause structure and verb series. Linguistic Inquiry, 40, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adger, D. (2003). Core syntax: A minimalist approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2006). Serial verb constructions in typological perspective. In A. Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (Eds.), Serial verb constructions: A cross-linguistic typology (pp. 1–68). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Aissen, J. (2003). Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21, 435–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Authier, G., & Haude, K. (2012). Ergativity, valency and voice. Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 48. Berlin: DeGruyter Mouton. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker, M. C. (2015). Case: Its principles and its parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baker, M. C., & Vinokurova, N. (2010). Two modalities of case assignment: Case in Sakha. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 28, 593–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berwick, R., & Chomsky, N. (2016). Why Only Us? Language and Evolution. Cambridge, MA and London, England: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bickerton, D. (1990). Language and species. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Bickerton, D. (2007). Language evolution: A brief guide for linguists. Lingua, 117, 510–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blake, B. (1976). On ergativity and the notion of subject. Lingua, 39(4), 281–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burzio, L. (1981). Intransitive verbs and Italian auxiliaries (Ph.D. dissertation). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  14. Carnie, A. (2013). Syntax: A generative introduction (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  15. Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Comrie, B. (1989). Language universals and linguistic typology (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  17. Comrie, B. (2002). Reconstruction, typology and reality. In R. Hickey (Ed.), Motives for language change (pp. 243–257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Croft, W. (2003). Typology and universals (2nd ed.). Cambridge textbooks in linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Culicover, P. W., & Jackendoff, R. (2005). Simpler syntax. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Culotta, E., & Hanson, B. (2004). First words. Science, 303, 1315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Darwin, C. M. A. (1874). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex (New ed.), revised and augmented. New York: Hurst and Company.Google Scholar
  22. Deacon, T. W. (1997). The symbolic species. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  23. 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.Google Scholar
  24. Dediu, D. (2015). An introduction to genetics for language scientists: Current concepts, methods, and findings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Di Sciullo, A.-M. (2013). Exocentric compounds, language and proto-language. Language and Information Society, 20, 1–26.Google Scholar
  27. Dryer, M. (1992). The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language, 68, 81–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dryer, M. (1997). On the six-way word order typology. Studies in Language, 21, 69–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fisher, S. E. (2017). Evolution of language: Lessons from the genome. Psychonomic Bulletin Review, 24, 34–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Fitch, W. T. (2010). The evolution of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fitch, W. T. (2017). Empirical approaches to the study of language evolution. Psychonomic Bulletin Review, 24, 3–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gil, D. (2005). Isolating-monocategorial-associational language. In H. Cohen & C. Lefebvre (Eds.), Handbook of categorization in cognitive science (pp. 347–379). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Givón, T. (1979). On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  35. Givón, T. (2002a). Bio-linguistics: The Santa Barbara lectures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Givón, T. (2002b). The visual information-processing system as an evolutionary precursor to human language. In T. Givón, & B.F. Malle (Eds.), The evolution of language out of pre-language (Vol. 53, pp. 3–50). Typological Studies in Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  37. Givón, T. (2009). The genesis of syntactic complexity: Diachrony, ontogeny, neuro-cognition, evolution. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  38. Greenberg, J. H. (1966). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of grammar (2nd ed., pp. 73–113). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Haldane, J. B. S. (1927). A mathematical theory of natural and artificial selection. Part V. Selection and mutation. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 23, 838–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Harris, E. E. (2015). Ancestors in our genome: The new science of human evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Hawkins, J. A. (1983). Word order universals. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  42. Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. (2007). The genesis of grammar. A reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Hinton, G. E., & Nowlan, S. J. (1987). How learning can guide evolution. Complex Systems, 1, 495–502.Google Scholar
  44. Hock, H. H. (1991). Principles of historical linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hurford, J. R. (2007). The origins of meaning: Language in the light of evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Hurford, J. R. (2012). The origins of grammar. Language in the light of evolution II. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Jackendoff, R. (1999). Possible stages in the evolution of the language capacity. Trends in Cognitive Science, 3, 272–279.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s1364-6613(99)01333-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Jackendoff, R. (2009). Compounding in the parallel architecture and conceptual semantics. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding (pp. 105-128). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Jackendoff, R., & Wittenberg, E. (2014). What you can say without syntax: A hierarchy of grammatical complexity. In F. J. Newmeyer & L. B. Preston (Eds.), Measuring grammatical complexity (pp. 65–82). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Jacob, F. (1977). Evolution and tinkering. Science, 196, 1161–1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Jӓger, G. (2007). Evolutionary game theory and typology: A case study. Language, 83, 74–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Jӓger, G. (2008). Applications of game theory in linguistics. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(3), 406–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kinsella, A. R. (2009). Language evolution and syntactic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kitagawa, Y. (1985). Small but clausal. Chicago Linguistic Society, 21, 210–220.Google Scholar
  56. Koopman, H., & Sportiche, D. (1991). The position of subjects. Lingua, 85, 211–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  58. Lloyd, P.M. (1968). Verb-complement compounds in Spanish. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, 116 Heft. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
  59. Marantz, A. (1991). Case and licensing. In G. Westphal, B. Ao, & H.-R. Chae (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL 8) (pp. 234–253). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  60. Marcus, G. (2008). Kluge: The haphazard construction of the human mind. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  61. McFadden, T. (2004). The position of morphological case in the derivation: A study on the syntax-morphology interface (Ph.D. dissertation). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  62. Mithun, M. (1994). The implications of ergativity for a Philippine voice system. In B. A. Fox & P. J. Hopper (Eds.), Voice: Form and function (pp. 247–277). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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
  64. Mufwene, S. (2013). The origins and the evolution of language. In K. Allan (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the history of linguistics (pp. 13–52). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Newman, P. (2014). The range and beauty of internal reconstruction: Probing Hausa linguistic history (Vol. 48, pp. 13–32). Studies of the Department of African Languages and Cultures [Warsaw].Google Scholar
  66. Newmeyer, F. J. (1991). Functional explanation in linguistics and the origin of language. Language & Communication, 11, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Newmeyer, F. J. (1998). On the supposed “counterfunctionality” of universal grammar: Some evolutionary implications. In J. R. Hurford, M. Studdert-Kennedy, & C. Knight (Eds.), Approaches to the evolution of language: Social and cognitive bases (pp. 305–319). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Newmeyer, F. J. (2005). Possible and probable languages: A generative perspective on linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Nichols, J., Peterson, D. A., & Barnes, J. (2004). Transitivizing and detransitivizing languages. Linguistic Typology, 8, 149–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Nóbrega, V., & Miyagawa, S. (2015). The precedence of syntax in the rapid emergence of human language in evolution as defined by the integration hypothesis. Frontiers in Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00271.
  71. Pinker, S., & Bloom, P. (1990). Natural language and natural selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13, 707–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Progovac, L. (2006). The syntax of nonsententials: Small clauses and phrases at the root. In L. Progovac, K. Paesani, E. Casielles, & E. Barton (Eds.), The syntax of nonsententials: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 33–71). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Progovac, L. (2008). What use is half a clause? In A. Smith, K. Smith, & R. Ferrer i Cancho (Eds.), Evolution of language: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference, Barcelona Spain, March 12–15 (pp. 259–266). Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific.Google Scholar
  74. Progovac, L. (2009). Sex and syntax: Subjacency revisited. Biolinguistics, 3(2-3), 305–336.Google Scholar
  75. Progovac, L. (2013). Nonsentential vs. ellipsis approaches: Review and extensions. Language and Linguistics Compass, 7/11, 597–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Progovac, L. (2015a). Evolutionary syntax. Oxford Studies in the Evolution of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Progovac, L. (2015b). The absolutive basis of “middles” and the status of vP and UTAH. In Proceedings of FASL 23 (Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 23), Berkeley Meeting, (pp. 242–261). Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
  78. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Progovac, L., & Locke, J. L. (2009). The urge to merge: Ritual insult and the evolution of syntax. Biolinguistics, 3(2-3), 337–354.Google Scholar
  80. 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, edited by E. Aboh, & U. Ansaldo.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00278.
  81. Ridley, M. (1993). Evolution. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
  82. Saeed, J. I. (2016). Semantics (4th ed.). Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  83. Shibatani, M. (1998). Voice parameters. In L. Kulikov, & H. Vater (eds.), Typology of verbal categories (pp. 117–138). Papers Presented to Vladimir Nedjalkov on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday. Tubingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  84. Smith, M. J., & Price, G. R. (1973). The logic of animal conflict. Nature, 246, 15–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Steels, L. (2011). Modeling the cultural evolution of language. Physics of Life Reviews.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2011.10.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Stone, L., & Lurquin, P.F. (2007). Genes, culture, and human evolution: A synthesis. Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  87. Stowell, T. (1981). Origins of phrase structure (Ph.D. dissertation). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  88. Tallerman, M. (2014). No syntax saltation in language evolution. Language Sciences, 46(Part B), 207–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 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/.
  90. Tallerman, M., & Gibson, K. R. (Eds.). (2012). The Oxford handbook of language evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  91. Tchekhoff, C. (1973). Some verbal patterns in Tongan. The Journal of the Polynesian Society, 82(3), 281–292.Google Scholar
  92. Toya, G., & Hashimoto, T. (2015). Computational study on evolution and adaptability of recursive operations. The 20th (AROB) International Symposium on Artificial Life and Robotics (pp. 68–73). Beppu, Japan.Google Scholar
  93. Van Leynseele, H. (1975). Restrictions on serial verb constructions in Anyi. Journal of West African Languages, X, 189–217.Google Scholar
  94. Weekley, E. (1916). Surnames. New York: E.P. Dutton & Co.Google Scholar
  95. Yip, M., Maling, J., & Jackendoff, R. (1987). Case in tiers. Language, 63, 217–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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