Evo-devo of Language and Cognition

Balari, Sergio; Lorenzo, Guillermo

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-33038-9_43-1

Cited by 4 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is important to note that this multicomponent view of language is not only adopted by usagebased, constructionist approaches and research paradigms in animal communication such as that espoused by Engesser & Townsend (2019). It is also consistent with the emerging trend in language evolution towards multicomponent (Fitch, 2017;Balari & Lorenzo, 2016), "mosaic" (Benítez-Burraco & Boecckx, 2014;Gong et al, 2018) conceptions of the language-ready brain (cf. Pleyer & Hartmann, 2019).…”

Section: Ariel 2015 P 605 and Passim)supporting

confidence: 58%

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: Ariel 2015 P 605 and Passim)supporting

confidence: 58%

Construction grammar for monkeys?

Pleyer

Hartmann

2020

ELT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our view is that “progressive biolinguistics” (as represented in publications such as Di Sciullo and Boeckx, 2011; Boeckx and Benítez-Burraco, 2014a,b; Balari and Lorenzo, 2016, 2018; Boeckx and Martins, 2016; Boeckx, 2017) is partly converging with usage-based approaches. Traditional, or “orthodox” (Kirby, 2017; Balari and Lorenzo, 2018) biolinguistics, however, is not.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As Balari and Lorenzo (2016, p. 4) point out, “[t]he task of disentangling the evolutionary origins of language suffers from the lack of a consensual view about what the evolved linguistic phenotype is supposed to be.” They argue that the theoretical positions differ along two coordinates: on the one hand, language is seen as “an external, socially shared code” – on the other hand, it is viewed as “a self-contained component of the human brain.” Thus, the issues of modularity and domain specificity are partly connected with the question of “what evolved,” as, e.g., Christiansen and Kirby (2003, p. 4) and Hurford (2012, p. 173) have framed one of the most crucial questions of language evolution research. However, the key disagreements are not necessarily about what belongs to the linguistic phenotype per se but rather about what components of language, if any, are specific to this particular cognitive “module.” Fitch (2017) summarizes the broadly shared view that language builds upon a broad array of mechanisms shared with other species, such as concepts and categories – which underlie semantics –, voluntary control over vocalization – which underlies phonology – or sequencing and working memory, which can be seen as underlying syntax.…”

Section: Convergence and Divergencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other important questions regard the evolution of the “language-ready social settings” (Pleyer and Lindner, 2014), that is, questions regarding the interactional, ontogenetic, and cultural processes that give rise to language and linguistic structure. As Balari and Lorenzo (2016) outline, much earlier work on language in the generative tradition conceived of language as a “self-contained component of the human brain” (4) that is modular and domain specific. However, they stress that there is currently a shift toward “a composite or mosaic conception of language” (see also Boeckx, 2017).…”

Section: Convergence and Divergencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…This renders concepts such as innateness meaningless and possibly even counterproductive as they do not take into account the importance of experience and environmental factors. To move past the concept of innateness, both biolinguistics and usage-based approaches need to properly acknowledge that development is always scaffolded in myriad ways (Caporael et al, 2014; see also Balari and Lorenzo, 2016) and that there are complex interactions within developmental systems. Development takes place in a particular evolutionary niche shaped and geared toward scaffolding learning processes.…”

Section: Convergence and Divergencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

What Lenneberg Got Right: A Homological Program for the Study of Language Evolution

Balari¹,

Lorenzo

2017

Bioling

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

By 1967, it was clear to Eric Lenneberg that reconstructing the phylogenetic history of language should require the adoption of a non-functional (or Owenian) homology concept for grounding relevant comparisons. Fifty years later, most biolinguistic approaches have betrayed this project, for they routinely derive their conclusions regarding the unique/shared status of language on merely folk grounds — as dramatically illustrated in Hauser, Chomsky & Fitch vs. Pinker & Jackendoff’s debate, or based on functional considerations — as in Chomsky’s recent conceptualization of language as a unique tool for thought. Here we claim that Lenneberg’s project needs to be resumed and we articulate some suggestions about how to conduct it, taking advantage of recent findings and new conceptual insights concerning two crucial levels of analysis actually pinpointed by him — namely, anatomical/molecular structure and physiological function.

show abstract

Evo-devo of Language and Cognition

Cited by 4 publications

References 20 publications

Construction grammar for monkeys?

Construction grammar for monkeys?

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

What Lenneberg Got Right: A Homological Program for the Study of Language Evolution

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About