Justifications for a Discontinuity Theory of Language Evolution

IF 0.6 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Biolinguistics Pub Date : 2018-02-04 DOI:10.5964/bioling.9085
C. Hackett
{"title":"Justifications for a Discontinuity Theory of Language Evolution","authors":"C. Hackett","doi":"10.5964/bioling.9085","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Chapter 6 of Biological Foundations of Language, Lenneberg argues against continuity theories of language evolution, which claim that language evolved from simpler communication systems. Although Lenneberg was pessimistic about even discontinuity theories explaining how language evolved, discontinuity has become significant in the Minimalist program, which posits that our species’ acquisition of Merge was the key discontinuity that made language possible. On the basis of a unified description of natural communication systems, I show that language is indeed based upon a cognitive discontinuity, which is moreover specific to linguistic ability. However, I argue that even Minimalist theories must recognise this discontinuity as the sensorimotor interface with syntax, rather than syntax itself. This ultimately supports the view that syntactic structures are structures of thought, but taking this claim seriously means reimagining how syntax relates to semantics and morphology, as the traditional ‘lexical item’ is no longer a tenable primitive of generative theory.","PeriodicalId":54041,"journal":{"name":"Biolinguistics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2018-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biolinguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5964/bioling.9085","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In Chapter 6 of Biological Foundations of Language, Lenneberg argues against continuity theories of language evolution, which claim that language evolved from simpler communication systems. Although Lenneberg was pessimistic about even discontinuity theories explaining how language evolved, discontinuity has become significant in the Minimalist program, which posits that our species’ acquisition of Merge was the key discontinuity that made language possible. On the basis of a unified description of natural communication systems, I show that language is indeed based upon a cognitive discontinuity, which is moreover specific to linguistic ability. However, I argue that even Minimalist theories must recognise this discontinuity as the sensorimotor interface with syntax, rather than syntax itself. This ultimately supports the view that syntactic structures are structures of thought, but taking this claim seriously means reimagining how syntax relates to semantics and morphology, as the traditional ‘lexical item’ is no longer a tenable primitive of generative theory.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
语言进化的不连续理论的理由
在《语言的生物学基础》的第6章中,Lenneberg反对语言进化的连续性理论,该理论认为语言是从更简单的交流系统进化而来的。尽管Lenneberg对解释语言如何进化的非连续性理论持悲观态度,但在极简主义计划中,非连续性已经变得很重要,该计划假设我们物种的合并是使语言成为可能的关键非连续性。在对自然交流系统的统一描述的基础上,我表明语言确实是建立在认知不连续的基础上的,而且这是特定于语言能力的。然而,我认为即使是极简主义理论也必须认识到这种不连续性是感觉运动与语法的界面,而不是语法本身。这最终支持了句法结构是思想结构的观点,但认真对待这一观点意味着重新想象语法与语义和形态学之间的关系,因为传统的“词汇项”不再是生成理论的一个站得住脚的原语。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Biolinguistics
Biolinguistics LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Biolinguistics end-of-year notice 2023 Why large language models are poor theories of human linguistic cognition: A reply to Piantadosi Social evolution and commitment: Bridging the gap between formal linguistic theories and language evolution research A future without a past: Philosophical consequences of Merge Eademne sunt?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1