Abstract

Syntax has been found in animal communication but only humans appear to have generative, hierarchically structured syntax. How did syntax evolve? I discuss three theories of evolutionary transition from animal to human syntax: computational capacity, structural flexibility and event perception. The computation hypothesis is supported by artificial grammar experiments consistently showing that only humans can learn linear stimulus sequences with an underlying hierarchical structure, a possible by-product of computationally powerful large brains. The structural flexibility hypothesis is supported by evidence of meaning-bearing combinatorial and permutational signal sequences in animals, with sometimes compositional features, but no evidence for generativity or hierarchical structure. Again, animals may be constrained by computational limits in short-term memory but possibly also by limits in articulatory control and social cognition. The event categorization hypothesis, finally, posits that humans are cognitively predisposed to analyse natural events by assigning agency and assessing how agents impact on patients, a propensity that is reflected by the basic syntactic units in all languages. Whether animals perceive natural events in the same way is largely unknown, although event perception may provide the cognitive grounding for syntax evolution. This article is part of the theme issue 'What can animal communication teach us about human language?'

Highlights

  • The lineages leading to Homo and Pan began to split some 6–8 Ma [1], which led to differences in morphology, behaviour and cognition between the three surviving species

  • The computation hypothesis is supported by artificial grammar experiments consistently showing that only humans can learn linear stimulus sequences with an underlying hierarchical structure, a possible by-product of computationally powerful large brains

  • The structural flexibility hypothesis is supported by evidence of meaning-bearing combinatorial and permutational signal sequences in animals, with sometimes compositional features, but no evidence for generativity or hierarchical structure

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The lineages leading to Homo and Pan began to split some 6–8 Ma [1], which led to differences in morphology, behaviour and cognition between the three surviving species. While all primates communicate with species-specific vocal repertoires, only humans have evolved a secondary communication system that is based on sophisticated, socially learned motor control of the vocal apparatus, unlike any other primate [2,3] This difference is already visible in human infants before language: from about four months of age, humans begin to control their vocal apparatus, first by engaging in playful babbling, followed by the production of simple word-like structures. At around 2 years of age, infants go beyond labelling simple referents (‘dada’, ‘duck’) and start producing word combinations [7], a developmental process that ends with the capacity to produce complex utterances with complex syntactic structures, such as ‘Neither did the linguist we consulted object nor was she interested’ (figure 1) Such communication behaviour requires considerable computational power, for both signallers and receivers.

Syntax and compositionality
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.