Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13 (4):707-27 (1990)
Authors | |
Abstract |
Many people have argued that the evolution of the human language faculty cannot be explained by Darwinian natural selection. Chomsky and Gould have suggested that language may have evolved as the by-product of selection for other abilities or as a consequence of as-yet unknown laws of growth and form. Others have argued that a biological specialization for grammar is incompatible with every tenet of Darwinian theory – that it shows no genetic variation, could not exist in any intermediate forms, confers no selective advantage, and would require more evolutionary time and genomic space than is available. We examine these arguments and show that they depend on inaccurate assumptions about biology or language or both. Evolutionary theory offers clear criteria for when a trait should be attributed to natural selection: complex design for some function, and the absence of alternative processes capable of explaining such complexity. Human language meets these criteria: Grammar is a complex mechanism tailored to the transmission of propositional structures through a serial interface. Autonomous and arbitrary grammatical phenomena have been offered as counterexamples to the position that language is an adaptation, but this reasoning is unsound: Communication protocols depend on arbitrary conventions that are adaptive as long as they are shared. Consequently, language acquisition in the child should systematically differ from language evolution in the species, and attempts to analogize them are misleading. Reviewing other arguments and data, we conclude that there is every reason to believe that a specialization for grammar evolved by a conventional neo-Darwinian process
|
Keywords | biology of language evolution grammatical theory language language acquisition language universals natural selection origin of language psycholinguistics |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
Reprint years | 1992 |
DOI | 10.1017/s0140525x00081061 |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
View all 74 references / Add more references
Citations of this work BETA
Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory.Dan Sperber - 2011 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (2):57.
Darwin's Mistake: Explaining the Discontinuity Between Human and Nonhuman Minds.Derek C. Penn, Keith J. Holyoak & Daniel J. Povinelli - 2008 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31 (2):109-130.
The Myth of Language Universals: Language Diversity and its Importance for Cognitive Science.Nicholas Evans & Stephen C. Levinson - 2009 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32 (5):429-448.
Coevolution of Neocortical Size, Group Size and Language in Humans.R. I. M. Dunbar - 1993 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16 (4):681-694.
The Faculty of Language: What's Special About It?Ray Jackendoff & Steven Pinker - 2005 - Cognition 95 (2):201-236.
View all 544 citations / Add more citations
Similar books and articles
Two Ways of Thinking About Fitness and Natural Selection.Mohan Matthen & André Ariew - 2002 - Journal of Philosophy 99 (2):55-83.
Probabilistic Causation and the Explanatory Role of Natural Selection.Pablo Razeto-Barry & Ramiro Frick - 2011 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 42 (3):344-355.
Brain Evolution by Natural Selection.Toru Shimizu - 2006 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (1):23-24.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2009-01-28
Total views
964 ( #6,636 of 2,506,155 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
18 ( #47,530 of 2,506,155 )
2009-01-28
Total views
964 ( #6,636 of 2,506,155 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
18 ( #47,530 of 2,506,155 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads