The selectionist legacy; biological pre-adaptations

1. Factors determining the evolution of language

1.1 Theoretical Linguistics – the problem with Neo-neo Darwinians
2 Biological steps to language readiness
2.1 Pre-adaptations (Hurford 2002)
2.2 Pre-phonetic capacity
2.3 Pre-syntactic capacity
2.4 Pre-semantic capacity
2.5 Pre-pragmatic capacity
2.6 Symbolic capacity
References
Frequently asked questions (yet, frequently left unanswered):
 Did Homo Erectus speak a syntactic language?
 When did passive voice appear? (questions ‘empirical-in-principle’)

Three divergent recipes for explanation

 consider biological factors in conjunction with language
 consider biological and linguistic factors separately
 consider linguistic factors only

Language is embedded in human psychology and society and is ultimately governed by the same
physical principles as galaxies and mesons (Hurford 2003:39).

First, as noted above, it would seem hard to accept either that language evolved gradually or that it
emerged abruptly, fully developed. […] we argue that the gradualist / abruptist issue is, in fact, a non-
issue; the apparent conundrum can be resolved by reference to the biological basis of language,
separating the question of the evolution of the primate brain from the question of the evolution of
human language (Wilkins – Wakefield 1995: 162).

biological evolution cultural evolution (see: Pinker – Bloom)

•anatomical, neural, biochemical aspects comparative •historical evolution of particular languages

research (underlie language capacity) •the influence of social interactions
 [S]yntax might really be autonomous, underived from other linguistic or
generally cognitive levels, unconstrained by use or need and not „learned” under
any standard interpretation of this term (Uriagiereka 1998:35)

 FL as the expression of I-language

 syntax as the autonomous component of the human mind / brain
 Parameter fixing independent of natural selection

[FL] does not have to be steered by any direct selection. More likely, it is to be
charted (as it is for many other biological organs or traits) following the lines of
elaborate, internally constrained, largely serendipitous morphogenetic
transformations (Uriagiereka 1998:36).

• emergence of FL as exaptationist-in-nature; lg as a by-product of some unknown,

unrelated mutation
 form and meaning can be effectively dissociated,
 human cognition embodies a system whose primitive elements are
nonsemantic and nondiscourse-derived
 syntactic principles are determined by system-internal principles of
combination
Many arrows did not hit the target. [many > not]
The target was not hit by many arrows [not > many]
Adaptation
 selectively crucial

Pre-adaptation
 selectively neutral (with respect to a given function)
 facilitates the emergence of the conditions that might be
considered important (thus, adaptations) for the development of a
given trait, ability, etc.

Adaptation vs. Pre-adaptation. An example:

1. Pre-phonetic capacity
2. Pre-syntactic capacity
3. Pre-semantic capacities:
 basic concepts
 more complex sentences (propositions)
 mental calculations of complex objects
4. Pre-pragmatic capacities:
 capacity to infer in mental calculations of others
 cooperation
 participation in the same external conditions as others
 symbolic action as a substitute for real action
5. Elementary symbolic capacity to link symbols and gestures
arbitrarily with basic concepts
 The importance of comparative studies
 distinction between primitive and derived properties
 behaviour vs. a voluntary control of the behaviour
 plasticity / automatization of certain processes

Much of the difference between humans and other species can be

attributed to greatly increased plasticity and voluntary control of
these pre-adaptive capacities (Hurford 2003:43)
 Chimpanzees Humans
K
little voluntary breath control good voluntary breath control
good voluntary control of manual good voluntary control of manual
gestures gestures
learning by imitation learning by imitation
no proper anatomical hardware the development of proper
anatomical hardware
Pre-adaptation for L: extension of voluntary control from hands to the vocal tract
Learning by imitation Fagg - Arbib (1998)
• tracing the neuronal pathways in the monkey brains “used” for instigating certain
actions (e.g. grasping objects)
• the neuronal behaviour in the brains of monkeys observing a certain action
performed by some other subjects
• the observation / execution of neuron firing system: mirror system for grasping.
(The Mirror System Hypothesis).
Certain neurons are discharged not only when
the monkey executes a given class of actions,
but also, when it observes more or less similar
meaningful hand movement made by the experimenter
(Arbib 2003: 188).

Chimpanzee’s use of MFS

• self-correction: based on the discrepancy between intended and observed self
action
• learning by imitation at the level of a single action
• social interaction; by anticipating what action another monkey has begun, a
monkey can determine how best to compete or cooperate with another monkey
Source: Speech Perception and Production Laboratory
pulmonic airstream mechanism (lung air going outwards)
 diaphragm contraction
 enlargement of lung cavity (facilitates air flow)
 air pushed up by downward movement of the rib cage / upward movement of the diaphragm
 vocal folds drawn together fairly tightly;
 air pressure builds up from below and forces the vocal folds apart
 sudden release of the vocal folds pressure reduced, the vocal folds are pulled back again
 pressure builds up again, the cycle is repeated ( x times / sec)

Respiratory System. Author: Theresa Knott .(GNU license)

Source: Davidson (2003), Public Productions, 2001

Vowel formation is the most important element of speech, and it is generally accepted, primarily from
computer models, that the maximum vocal clarity occurs when the length of the oral cavity (SVTH)
and the length of the pharynx (SVTV) are approximately equal, i.e. the ratio of oral cavity to
pharyngeal length is approximately 1:1 (Davidson 2003: 191).
 The human larynx descends during infancy and the early juvenile periods, and this greatly contributes to the
morphological foundations of speech development. This developmental phenomenon is believed to be unique to
humans. This concept has formed a basis for paleoanthropological studies on the origin and evolution of human
speech. We used magnetic resonance imaging to study the development of three living chimpanzees and
found that their larynges also descend during infancy, as in human infants. This descent was completed
primarily through the rapid descent of the laryngeal skeleton relative to the hyoid, but it was not accompanied by
the descent of the hyoid itself. The descent is possibly associated with developmental changes of the
swallowing mechanism. Moreover, it contributes physically to an increased independence between the
processes of phonation and articulation for vocalization. Thus, the descent of the larynx and the
morphological foundations for speech production must have evolved in part during hominoid evolution, and
not in a single shift during hominid evolution.
(Nishimura* et al. 2003)

 Facts and figures:

• in the human neonate, the hyoid bone and larynx are positioned as high as in other mammals (1–3).
• they descend gradually during postnatal life
• the human supralaryngeal vocal tract (SVT) develops to form a double resonator system with
equally long horizontal [SVTH, from the posterior oropharyngeal wall (POW) to the lips] and
vertical (SVTV, from the vocal folds to the velum) components
• such a configuration in combination with the tongue’s mobility, enables humans to produce
complex speech sounds
 Common assumptions:
• this developmental descent evolved as an adaptation for speech in
a single shift in the human lineage, in combination with other
related factors
• the basis for paleoanthropological studies on the origin and
evolution of human speech; the ‘‘unique’’ morphological features
• related to speech examined through comparisons with extant
primates [comparative studies] ‣
• the evolution of the morphological basis for human speech has
been regarded as synonymous with the evolution of the
developmental descent of the larynx.
• few comparative studies on the developmental changes of
humans and non-human mammals - it is unclear how and when
the unique features of the speech apparatus of adult humans
appear and develop during growth.
*
‘Phonological syntax’ (Ps) (pre-adaptation)
The units have no independent meaning, the ‘speech’ is not discrete in the semantic /
structural sense

‘Lexical syntax’ (Ls)

Infinitely discrete, independent units contribute to the overall meaning of the unit
(sentence)

Instances of Ps
 Oscine birds (song birds, e.g. nightingale, cuckoo, vocal tract facilitating the
production of sound notes) – complex songs, indiscrete
 Mammals (bird) – can’t produce songs composed of independent sub-units
 Gibbons – markers of individual identity, advertising / defending the territory,
sub-unit notes used in isolation express aggression. No evidence for a plausible
note-concatenation operation (equivalent to lexical syntax)
 no clear evidence suggesting that apes can learn hierarchically structured
behaviours
Basic concept formation (quantitative difference)
categorisation and retention of inner characteristics of external objects

• apes – categorise the concepts they need for dictated by physiology / ecology, a limited range of
voluntary control / awareness of the existence of the objects (i.e. evoking them despite the absence
thereof)
• humans – the number of categorised objects well exceeds their physiological / ecological needs,
voluntary control / awareness of the ‘mental’ lexicon of objects

For full human language to have taken off, a way had to evolve of mentally reviewing one’s thoughts in
a much more free-ranging way than animals seem to use (Hurford 2003: 45).

Complex concept formation

creation of complex (yet, discrete) conceptual structures, (a two-stage process: attending to an object /
forming judgments about the attended object)

• apes – developed to a limited degree

• humans – developed in a advanced form

Mental calculations
using the previously gained experience in problem-solving tasks

apes – developed to a limited range

humans – well developed
Mind-reading and manipulation
the ability to predict the reaction of the listener
• apes – chimpanzees display some properties of mind-reading and social manipulation
• humans – characterised by social intelligence, a well-developed ability to predict and
thus, to a certain extent, plan the reactions of other members of the group (autistic
children !!)
Cooperation
language users try to cooperate (i.e. be helpful) in a conversation (extension: Grice’s
(1975) Cooperative Principle)
• apes vs. humans – as above
Principle CP
Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs,
by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged
Specific Maxims
• Quality: make contribution 1/ as informative and 2/ not more informative than
required
• Quality: don’t say 1/ what you believe to be false and 2/ that for which you lack
adequate evidence.
• Relation: be relevant
• Manner: 1/ avoid obscurity; 2/ avoid ambiguity; 3/ be brief; 4/ be orderly
Examples:

A: How is C getting on in his job [at the bank]?

B: Oh quite well, I think; he likes his colleagues, and he hasn’t been to prison yet.
 2/
A: I am out of petrol
B: There is a garage around the corner.

What is the implicature?

• While A hasn’t been to prison, he is the sort of person who could easily end up
there.
• B would be infringing the maxim of “be relevant” unless B thinks that A can by
petrol at the garage.
Joint attention
The basis of reference in language (pronouns, anaphors, R-expressions). The ability
to trace the pointer, i.e. to attract attention on the objects that are relevant to
the ‘discussion’. Following the gaze.

• apes – primates are significantly better at focusing attention that other non-
primate species
• humans – able to follow other individual’s gaze by looking into their eyes

Ritualised action
act-performing words to which there is no assigned truth / false value (e.g. hello,
thanks, alveolar click as an expression of disapproval)

• animals (dogs) – the snarling baring of the teeth as a sign of hostility

• people – the ability to dissociate between the form and the meaning of the action
(signal) as the basis for arbitrary sign – meaning relation (recal: Hockett’s 1957
arbitrariness)
 The arbitrary relation between the sign (sound) and meaning (concept)

tree

?
[tri:]
N (+N, -Case)

&
trained animals
• capable of acquiring arbitrary mappings between concepts and signals (chimpanzees reaching the level of a 4-year-old child in terms of the number of lex. items)
• an ape can make a mental link between an abstract symbol and some object or action, but the circumstances of wild life will never nurture this ability, and it remains
undeveloped (Hurford 2003: 48)
• qualitative threshold
• indulge in symbolic behaviour to satisfy their immediate needs
• unable to cope with the (acquired) sign – meaning link clash (e.g. YELLOW)

humans
• willingness to indulge in symbolic behaviour
• no clear qualitative threshold on LEXICON

We now have the possibility of highly sophisticated speech acts, whose interpretation involves decoding of a complex signal into a complex conceptual representation accompanied
by complex calculations to derive the likely intended social force of the utterance (Hurford 2003: 49).
What about syntax and phonology?
Davidson, T.M. 2003. “Medical hypothesis: The Great Leap Forward: the anatomic basis for the acquisition
of speech and obstructive sleep apnea.” Sleep Medicine (4: 185-194). Available online:
http://www.drdavidson.ucsd.edu/LinkClick.aspx?link=The+Great+Leap.pdf&tabid=36&mid=345
Grice, H. P. 1975. “Logic and conversation”, in: Peter Cole - Jerry L. Morgan. (eds). 1975. Syntax and
semantics: Speech acts. New York: Academic Press. 41-58.
Nishimura, T.* - A. Mikami - J. Suzuki – T. Matsuzawa. (2003). „Descent of the larynx in chimpanzee
infants”, PNAS 100/12: 6930-6933. Available online:
http://www.pnas.orgcgidoi10.1073pnas.1231107100
Wilkins, W.K. & Wakefield, J. (1995). Brain evolution and neurolinguistic preconditions. Behavioral and
Brain Sciences 18 (1): 161-226.
Available online: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Atrium/1381/hominids1.html (hominid evolution)