Abstract
Poeppel (2008) observes that there is no clear correspondence between units of analysis in linguistics (especially the abstract and arbitrary-looking principles of syntax) and biological units of neuroscience, concluding that current neurolinguistic research presents a case of cross-sterilization, rather than cross-fertilization. Here the proposal is developed that decomposing syntax into intermediate evolutionary layers, into its evolutionary primitives, not only makes syntax compatible with gradualist accounts, but it also renders it more tangible and less abstract. In this approach, at least some complexities (and oddities) of syntax, such as Subjacency effects and the small clause core, can be seen as side-effects/by-products of evolutionary tinkering. It is conceivable that such evolutionary considerations are a necessary missing ingredient in any attempt to establish links between the postulates of syntax and the units of neuroscience. This article considers concrete linguistic data and suggestions as to where and how to look for neurobiological correlates of syntax.
Highlights
Poeppel (2008) observes that there is no clear correspondence between units of analysis in linguistics and biological units of neuroscience, concluding that current neurolinguistic research presents a case of crosssterilization, rather than cross-fertilization
I first discuss the significance of the commonly accepted analysis according to which every modern clause/sentence unfolds from the small clause core, explore the possibility that transitive constructions were tinkered out of the intransitive ones, leading to two types of present-day languages, and consider the consequences of the proposal that proto-syntax was based on small clauses
The production/perception of a tense phrase (TP) may have to tap into two distinct neural mechanisms, with possibly some overlap: the one that supports the proto(-syntax) of small clauses, and another that supports the more recent TP syntax, necessarily activating the procedural memory
Summary
Poeppel (2008) observes that there is no clear correspondence between units of analysis in linguistics (especially syntax) and biological units of neuroscience, concluding that current neurolinguistic research presents a case of crosssterilization, rather than cross-fertilization (see Poeppel & Embick 2005). Lightfoot 1991, Chomsky 2005) My contribution stands this argument on its head, and proposes that decomposing syntax into intermediate evolutionary layers, into its evolutionary primitives, makes syntax compatible with adaptationist accounts, but it renders it more tangible and less abstract. I first discuss the significance of the commonly accepted analysis according to which every modern clause/sentence unfolds from the small clause core, explore the possibility that transitive constructions were tinkered out of the intransitive ones, leading to two types of present-day languages (ergative–absolutive and nominative–accusative), and consider the consequences of the proposal that proto-syntax was based on (intransitive) small clauses.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: 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.
