Minimalism in the Light of Biology: What to Retain and What to Discard?

Progovac, Ljiljana

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01303

Cited by 3 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, it is of course indeed possible that animals do not exhibit systems combining more than two elements due to them possessing only limited merge capacities (Rizzi, 2016, Miyagawa & Clarke, 2019. The existence of a merge-like process is consistent with usagebased, constructionist theory Pleyer & Hartmann 2019).…”

Section: Animal Vocalisations and Gestures As Constructionssupporting

confidence: 56%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Construction grammar for monkeys?

Pleyer

Hartmann

2020

ELT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, multiple researchers working on the evolution of language have put forward the idea that the theoretical framework of usage-based approaches and Construction Grammar is highly suitable for modelling the emergence of human language from pre-linguistic or proto-linguistic communication systems. This also raises the question of whether usage-based and constructionist approaches can be integrated with the analysis of animal communication systems. In this paper, we review possible avenues where usage-based, constructionist approaches can make contact with animal communication research, which in turn also has implications for theories of language evolution. To this end, we first give an overview of key assumptions of usage-based and constructionist approaches before reviewing some key issues in animal communication research through the lens of usage-based, constructionist approaches. Specifically, we will discuss how research on alarm calls, gestural communication and symbol-trained animals can be brought into contact with usage-based, constructionist theorizing. We argue that a constructionist view of animal communication can yield new perspectives on its relation to human language, which in turn has important implications regarding the evolution of language. Importantly, this theoretical approach also generates hypotheses that have the potential of complementing and extending results from the more formalist approaches that often underlie current animal communication research.

show abstract

Section: Animal Vocalisations and Gestures As Constructionssupporting

confidence: 56%

“…Hurford, 2012;Zuberbühler, 2019). Such a position is also in line with criticism from within biolinguistic approaches that explanation of language evolution often demonstrate an over-reliance on merge to the detriment of other important processes (Progovac, 2019b;cf. Martin & Boeckx, 2019).…”

Section: Animal Vocalisations and Gestures As Constructionsmentioning

confidence: 60%

Construction grammar for monkeys?

Pleyer

Hartmann

2020

ELT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In minimalism, this has been done by identifying a key conceptual component, Merge, as being central to language and its evolution (e.g., Radford, 2004; Berwick and Chomsky, 2016; Fitch, 2017). This solitary focus on Merge as the key explanandum of the complexity of the language faculty has also been criticized (Progovac, 2019). Indeed, as we are going to outline in the following sections, there have been developments in biolinguistics toward an agenda that takes other factors and domains equally seriously (e.g., Benítez-Burraco and Boeckx, 2014).…”

Section: The Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constructing a Consensus on Language Evolution? Convergences and Differences Between Biolinguistic and Usage-Based Approaches

Pleyer

Hartmann

2019

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two of the main theoretical approaches to the evolution of language are biolinguistics and usage-based approaches. Both are often conceptualized as belonging to seemingly irreconcilable “camps.” Biolinguistic approaches assume that the ability to acquire language is based on a language-specific genetic foundation. Usage-based approaches, on the other hand, stress the importance of domain-general cognitive capacities, social cognition, and interaction. However, there have been a number of recent developments in both paradigms which suggest that biolinguistic and usage-based approaches are actually moving closer together. For example, theoretical advancements such as evo-devo and complex adaptive system theory have gained traction in the language sciences, leading to changed conceptions of issues like the relative influence of “nature” and “nurture.” In this paper, we outline points of convergence between current minimalist biolinguistic and usage-based approaches regarding four contentious issues: (1) modularity and domain specificity; (2) innateness and development; (3) cultural and biological evolution; and (4) knowledge of language and its description. We show that across both paradigms, researchers have come to increasingly embrace more complex views of these issues. They also have come to appreciate the view that biological and cultural evolution are closely intertwined, which lead to an increased amount of common ground between minimalist biolinguistics and usage-based approaches.

show abstract

“…While the particular track that Newmeyer proposed regarding Subjacency may have been in the wrong direction, it was a specific and syntactically informed proposal, and as such it provided a good basis for debate and subsequent proposals. For example, inspired by this proposal, Progovac (2009Progovac ( , 2015Progovac ( , 2019b proposed the opposite track, that Subjacency (lack of Move) is actually the primary, ancestral state of grammar, while Move was a later innovation (hence the default, elsewhere flavor of islandhood). 6 Importantly, scientific progress cannot be made in the fields of language evolution and human evolution more generally without advancing testable and falsifiable hypotheses in the attempt to confront The Selection and The Decomposition Problems specifically relating to language, as language is the key player in human evolution.…”

Section: The Five Problems/challenges Facing Language Evolution Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This of course assumes that we syntacticians, especially those working within Minimalism, need to abandon the frequent assumption that syntax is uniform across all constructions and all languages. This assumption has proven to be a true hinderance to studying the evolution of syntax, and language more generally, in addition to generating a host of unfalsifiable claims in syntactic theory itself (for more discussion,see Progovac 2013;2019b).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Natural/sexual selection: What’s language (evolution) got to do with it?

Progovac

2019

Yearbook of the Poznan Linguistic Meeting

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

By considering a specific scenario of early language evolution, here I advocate taking into account one of the most obvious players in the evolution of human language capacity: (sexual) selection. The proposal is based both on an internal reconstruction using syntactic theory, and on comparative typological evidence, directly bringing together, formal, typological, and evolutionary considerations. As one possible test case, transitivity is decomposed into evolutionary primitives of syntactic structure, revealing a common denominator and the building blocks for crosslinguistic variation in transitivity. The approximations of this early grammar, identified by such a reconstruction, while not identical constructs, are at least as good proxies of the earliest stages of grammar as one can find among tools, cave paintings, or bird song. One subtype of such "living fossils" interacts directly with biological considerations of survival, aggression, and mate choice, while others clearly distinguish themselves in fMRI experiments. The fMRI findings are consistent with the proposal that the pressures to be able to master ever more and more complex syntax were at least partly responsible for driving the selection processes which gradually increased the connectivity of the Broca's-basal ganglia network, crucial for syntactic processing, among other important functions.

show abstract

Minimalism in the Light of Biology: What to Retain and What to Discard?

Cited by 3 publications

References 25 publications

Construction grammar for monkeys?

Construction grammar for monkeys?

Constructing a Consensus on Language Evolution? Convergences and Differences Between Biolinguistic and Usage-Based Approaches

Natural/sexual selection: What’s language (evolution) got to do with it?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About