What Can an Extended Synthesis do for Biolinguistics: On the Needs and Benefits of Eco-Evo-Devo Program

Chapter
Part of the Interdisciplinary Evolution Research book series (IDER, volume 1)

Abstract

Recent publications exploring the links between linguistics and biology suggest that in sharp contrast to the overly adaptationist and genocentric framework provided by the modern synthesis and at the heart of evolutionary psychology, the conceptual pluralism made available by an evo-devo-inspired extended synthesis could lead to more productive investigations in the domains of language evolution and development. But such promises have yet to be articulated in detail, and the challenges ahead should also be made explicit. This chapter focuses on a range of historical, conceptual, and empirical issues surrounding language and seeks to address what evo-devo could do for biolinguistics.

Keywords

Development Evolution Genetics Linguistics Neuroscience Biolinguistics 

References

  1. Balari S (2012) Up the cudgels for lenneberg. In: Boeckx C, Horno M, MendivÍl Giró JL (eds) Language from a biological point of view: current issues in Biolinguistics. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Cambridge, pp 208–214Google Scholar
  2. Balari S, Lorenzo G (2013) Computational phenotypes: towards an evolutionary developmental biolinguistics. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Benitez-Burraco A, Longa V (2010) Evo-devo—of course, but which one? Biolinguistics 4:308–323Google Scholar
  4. Berwick RC, Friederici AD, Chomsky N, Bolhuis JJ (2013) Evolution, brain, and the nature of language. Trends in Cogn Sci 17:89–98Google Scholar
  5. Blevins J (2004) Evolutionary phonology: the emergence of sound patterns. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bloomfield TC, Gentner TQ, Margoliash D (2011) What birds have to say about language. Nat Neurosci 14:947PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boeckx C (2006) Linguistic minimalism: origins, concepts, methods, and aims. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Boeckx C (2009a) Language in cognition: uncovering mental structures and the rules behind them. Wiley-Blackwell, MaldenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boeckx C (2009b) Some notes on the syntax-thought interface. In: Proceedings of the Sophia University Linguistic Society vol 24. Sophia University Linguistic Society, pp 92–103Google Scholar
  10. Boeckx C (2010) Linguistic minimalism. In: Heine B, Narrog H (eds) Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 485–505Google Scholar
  11. Boeckx C (2011a) Some reflections on Darwin’s Problem in the context of Cartesian Biolinguistics. In: Di Sciullo A-M, Boeckx C (eds) The biolinguistic enterprise: new perspectives on the evolution and nature of the human language faculty. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 42–64Google Scholar
  12. Boeckx C (ed) (2011b) The oxford handbook of linguistic minimalism. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Boeckx C (2012) The I-language mosaic. In: Boeckx C, Horno M, Mendivil J-L (eds) Language from a biological point of view: current issues in biolinguistics. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, pp 23–51Google Scholar
  14. Boeckx C (2013) Biolinguistics: forays into human cognitive biology. J Anthropol Sci 91:63–89PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Boeckx C (In press) What principles & parameters got wrong. In: Picallo C (ed) Linguistic variation and the minimalist program. Oxford University Press, Oxford Google Scholar
  16. Boeckx C (To appear) Elementary syntactic structures. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Boeckx C, Leivada E, Martins PT (2013) Language and complexity considerations: a biolinguistics perspective. Llengua, Societat i Comunicacio 11:20–26Google Scholar
  18. Boeckx C, Longa VM (2011) Lenneberg’s views on language development and evolution and their relevance for modern biolinguistics. Biolinguistics 5:254–273Google Scholar
  19. Boeckx C, Samuels B (2009) What emerges from merge in phonology. Presented at the 6th old world conference on phonology, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  20. Burge T (2010) Origins of objectivity. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Carey S (2009) The origin of concepts. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Carroll SB (2005) Endless forms most beautiful: the new science of evo-devo and the making of the animal kingdom. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Carruthers P (2006) The architecture of the mind. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM (1990) How monkeys see the world. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  25. Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM (2007) Baboon metaphysics: the evolution of a social mind. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Chomsky N (1972) Language and mind. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Chomsky N (1980) Rules and representations. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Chomsky N (1981) Lectures on government and binding. Foris, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  29. Chomsky N (1995) The minimalist program. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Chomsky N (2000) New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Chomsky N (2007a) Approaching UG from below. In Interfaces+recursion=language? Chomsky’s minimalism and the view from semantics, ed. U. Sauerland and H.-M. Gartner, 1–30. Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar
  32. Chomsky N (2007b) Of minds and language. Biolinguistics 1:009–027Google Scholar
  33. Chomsky N (2009) Opening remarks and conclusion. In: Piattelli-Palmarini M, Salaburu P, Uriagereka J (eds) Of minds and language: a Basque encounter with Noam Chomsky. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  34. Chomsky N (2010) Some simple evo devo theses: how true might they be for language. The evolution of human language: biolinguistic perspectives, p 62Google Scholar
  35. Clark B (2013) Syntactic theory and the evolution of syntax. Biolinguistics 7:169–197Google Scholar
  36. Dawkins R (1996) Climbing mount improbable. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. De Waal F, Ferrari PF (2010) Towards a bottom-up perspective on animal and human cognition. Trends Cogn Sci 14:201–207PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Deacon TW (2006) Emergence: the hole at the wheel’s hub. In: Clayton P, Davies P (eds) The re-emergence of emergence: the emergentist hypothesis from science to religion. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 111–150Google Scholar
  39. Deacon TW (2010) A role for relaxed selection in the evolution of the language capacity. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107:9000–9006PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Dennett D (1995) Darwin’s dangerous idea: evolution and the meanings of life. Simon & Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Dobzhansky T (1973) Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Am Biol Teach 35:125–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Fitch WT, Hauser MD, Chomsky N (2005) The evolution of the language faculty: clarifications and implications. Cognition 97:179–210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Fitch WT (2011a) ‘Deep homology’ in the biology and evolution of language. In: Di Sciullo AM, Boeckx C (ed) The biolinguistic enterprise: new perspectives on the evolution and nature of the human language faculty. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 135–166Google Scholar
  44. Fitch WT (2011b) Unity and diversity in human language. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 366:376–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Fujita K (2013) Review of anna maria di sciullo and cedric boeckx eds. the biolinguistic enterprise: new perspectives on the evolution and nature of the human language faculty. Studies in English Literature 54:175–184Google Scholar
  46. Gould SJ (2002) The structure of evolutionary theory. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  47. Hall DC (2012) Bridget d. samuels, phonological architecture: a biolinguistic perspective (oxford studies in biolinguistics 2). J Linguist 48:736–741 (Oxford: Oxford university press, 2011, pp. xii+ 252)Google Scholar
  48. Hauser MD (2001) Wild minds: what animals really Think. Owl Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. Hauser MD (2009) Evolingo: the nature of the language faculty. In: Piattelli-Palmarini M, Salaburu P, Uriagereka J (eds) Of minds and language: a Basque encounter with Noam Chomsky. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 74–84Google Scholar
  50. Hauser MD, Chomsky N, Fitch WT (2002) The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298:1569–1579PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Heinz J, Idsardi W (2013) What complexity differences reveal about domains in language*. Top Cogn Sci 5:111–131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Hinzen W (2007) An essay on naming and truth. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  53. Hinzen W (2011) Language and thought. In: Boeckx C (ed) The oxford handbook of linguistic minimalism, Chapter. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 499–522Google Scholar
  54. Hurford JR (2007) The origins of meaning. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  55. Jackendoff R (1990) Semantic structures. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  56. Jackendoff R (2002) Foundations of language. Oxford University Press, New York, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Jackendoff R (2010) Meaning and the Lexicon: the parallel architecture 1975–2010. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  58. Jackendoff R, Pinker S (2005) The nature of the language faculty and its implications for evolution of language (reply to Fitch, Hauser, and Chomsky). Cognition 97:211–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Jacob F, Monod J (1961) On the regulation of gene activity. In: Cold spring harbor symposia on quantitative biology, vol 26. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, pp 193–211Google Scholar
  60. Keller EF (2002) Making sense of life: explaining biological development with models, metaphors, and machines. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  61. Kirby S (2001) Spontaneous evolution of linguistic structure-an iterated learning model of the emergence of regularity and irregularity. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 5:102–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Kirby S, Cornish H, Smith K (2008) Cumulative cultural evolution in the laboratory: an experimental approach to the origins of structure in human language. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:10681–10686PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Kirby S, Hurford J (2002) The emergence of linguistic structure: an overview of the iterated learning model. Simulating the evolution of language, Springer, London, pp 121–148Google Scholar
  64. Longa VM, Lorenzo G (2008) What about a (really) minimalist theory of language acquisition? Linguistics 46:541–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Longa VM, Lorenzo G (2012) Theoretical linguistics meets development: explaining FL from an epigeniticist point of view. In: Boeckx C, Horno M, Mendivíl Giró JL (eds) Language from a biological point of view: current issues in Biolinguistics. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp 52–84Google Scholar
  66. Lorenzo G, Longa VM (2009) Beyond generative geneticism: rethinking language acquisition from a developmentalist point of view. Lingua 119:1300–1315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Lynch M (2007) The origins of genome architecture. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  68. Mayr E (1960) The emergence of evolutionary novelties. Evol Darwin 1:349–380Google Scholar
  69. Moczek AP (2008) On the origins of novelty in development and evolution. BioEssays 30:432–447PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Moczek AP, Rose DJ (2009) Differential recruitment of limb patterning genes during development and diversification of beetle horns. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:8992–8997PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Müller GB (2008) EvoDevo as a discipline. In: Minelli A, Fusco G (eds) Evolving Pathways: Key themes in evolutionary developmental biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 3–29Google Scholar
  72. Müller GB (2010) Epigenetic innovation. Evolution-the extended synthesis. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 307–333Google Scholar
  73. Müller GB, Newman SA (2005) The innovation triad: an Evodevo agenda. J Exp Zool Part B: Mol Dev Evol 304:487–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Müller GB, Wagner GP (1991) Novelty in evolution: restructuring the concept. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 22:229–256Google Scholar
  75. Newmeyer FJ (2005) Possible and probable languages: a generative perspective on linguistic typology. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Okanoya K (2012) Behavioural factors governing song complexity in bengalese finches. Int J Comp Psychol 25:44–59Google Scholar
  77. Piattelli-Palmarini M (1989) Evolution, selection and cognition: from ‘learning’ to parameter setting in biology and in the study of language. Cognition 31:1–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Pietroski PM (2011) Minimal semantic instructions. In: Boeckx C (ed) Oxford handbook of linguistic minimalism. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 472–498Google Scholar
  79. Pietroski PM (To appear) Conjoining meanings: semantics without truth values. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  80. Pigliucci M (2007) Do we need an extended evolutionary synthesis? Int J Org Evol 61:2743–2749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Pigliucci M, Müller G (eds) (2010) Evolution—The extended synthesis. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  82. Pinker S (1997) How the mind works. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  83. Pinker S, Bloom P (1990) Natural selection and natural language. Behav Brain Sci 13:707–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Pinker S, Jackendoff R (2005) The faculty of language: what’s special about it? Cognition 95:201–236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Prud’homme B, Minervino C, Hocine M, Cande JD, Aouane A, Dufour HD, Kassner VA, Gompel N (2011) Body plan innovation in treehoppers through the evolution of an extra wing-like appendage. Nature 473:83–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Samuels B (2011) Phonological architecture: a biolinguistic perspective. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Samuels B, Hauser MD, Boeckx C (In press) Do animals have universal grammar? A case study in phonology. In: Roberts IG (eds) The oxford handbook of universal grammar. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  88. Scharff C, Petri J (2011) Evo-devo, deep homology and foxp2: implications for the evolution of speech and language. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 366:2124–2140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Shubin N, Tabin C, Carroll S (2009) Deep homology and the origins of evolutionary novelty. Nature 457:818–823PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Uriagereka J (1998) Rhyme and reason: an introduction to minimalist syntax. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  91. Uriagereka J (2008) Syntactic anchors: on semantic structuring. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wagner GP, Müller GB (2002) Evolutionary innovations overcome ancestral constraints: a re-examination of character evolution in male sepsid flies. Evol Dev 4:1–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. West-Eberhard MJ (2003) Developmental plasticity and evolution. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  94. Yip MJ (2006) The search for phonology in other species. Trends Cogn Sci 10:442–446PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ICREA—Catalan Institute for Advanced StudiesBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Department of General LinguisticsUniversitat de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations