Integrating Cognitive Linguistics and language evolution research

Pleyer, Michael; Winters, James

doi:10.12775/ths-2014-002

Cited by 17 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 74 publications

(79 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, Heine and Kuteva (2002, 2007, 2012) and Bybee (2010) argue that grammaticalization processes can account for the development from early (proto-)language to modern languages (see also Arbib, 2012, 2015). It has also been noted that the complex adaptive system view of language is highly compatible with those strands of language evolution research that focus on the (cumulative) cultural evolution of language (see e.g., Pleyer and Winters, 2014; Pleyer, 2017), such as the Iterated Learning paradigm that has become one of the most influential approaches in language evolution research (Kirby and Hurford, 2002; Kirby et al, 2008; Kirby, 2017).…”

Section: The Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 78%

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

Pleyer

Hartmann

2019

Front. Psychol.

Self Cite

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

Section: The Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 78%

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

Pleyer

Hartmann

2019

Front. Psychol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ideas from the Cognitive-Linguistics Framework. In the Cognitive-Linguistic paradigm-including Construction Grammar approaches, which propose that language can be defined as the knowledge of form-meaning pairings, and the Usage-Based approaches, which propose that language acquisition and processing are based on instances of actual language use-language is seen as tightly integrated with cognition as a whole (Pleyer and Winters 2014). Construction grammars propose that all levels of description using grammar rely on formulaic structures that represent form-meaning pairings being recognized and fixed in the mind, or 'cognitively entrenched', through repetition, ; Usage-based approaches state that meaning and structure emerge from use (Tomasello 2008), and that language users are sensitive to input-frequencies resulting in more frequent structures being learnt more easily and processed more fluently (Ellis et al 2015).…”

Section: What the Brain Acquires From A Language As Relating To Lessomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ideas from Evolutionary Linguistics. In Evolutionary Linguistics, language is seen as a complex adaptive system resulting from the interaction of the individual learning the language, how the language has changed over history and how humans have changed through history (Pleyer and Winters 2014). The idea of language changing to be better suited to its environment is more than ten years old (Kirby & Christiansen 2003, Brighton et al 2005, but these ideas are currently undergoing revision due to their former reliance on ideas of an inborn, innate language template in the Universal Grammar ideas of Chomsky (1965), which are no longer a central framework theory in linguistics (Dąbrowska 2015, Evans & Levinson 2009.…”

Section: What the Brain Acquires From A Language As Relating To Lessomentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Human Brain Does Not Need High Levels of Motivation to Learn a Foreign Language: Motivation Has Had its Day

2016

ALLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Language is nature in action and something humans do. This literature review presents evidence from the literature that suggests that learning a foreign language in a classroom situation does not require high levels of student motivation. It is instead suggested that high levels of motivation are needed to make progress when a teacher is using traditional teaching methods. It is shown that all healthy human brains are excellent at learning and using language, and high levels of motivation to learn a foreign language are not required if teaching practices and materials replicate natural learning experiences, and class participation is ensured. This work is of great importance to teachers as it demonstrates that teachers would help students more by investing their time in developing class materials than by worrying about student motivation.

show abstract

“…In related proposals, constellations of mental skills including “shared intentionality,” “perspective-taking,” “comprehension” (etc. ), along with “thought processes” (Ackermann et al, 2014), and “purpose” (Deacon, 2011) are evoked as driving factors (for an overview of these types of factors, see the proposal of Pleyer, 2017, and Pleyer and Winters, 2015). These accounts collectively imply what some have called “mentalistic teleological” principles (Allen, 1996/2009), which do not accord with accepted features of evolution.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Structural Effects of Modality on the Rise of Symbolic Language: A Rebuttal of Evolutionary Accounts and a Laboratory Demonstration

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why does symbolic communication in humans develop primarily in an oral medium, and how do theories of language origin explain this? Non-human primates, despite their ability to learn and use symbolic signs, do not develop symbols as in oral language. This partly owes to the lack of a direct cortico-motoneuron control of vocalizations in these species compared to humans. Yet such modality-related factors that can impinge on the rise of symbolic language are interpreted differently in two types of evolutionary storylines. (1) Some theories posit that symbolic language originated in a gestural modality, as in “sign languages.” However, this overlooks work on emerging sign and spoken languages showing that gestures and speech shape signs differently. (2) In modality-dependent theories, some emphasize the role of iconic sounds, though these lack the efficiency of arbitrary symbols. Other theorists suggest that ontogenesis serves to identify human-specific mechanisms underlying an evolutionary shift from pitch varying to orally modulated vocalizations (babble). This shift creates numerous oral features that can support efficient symbolic associations. We illustrate this principle using a sound-picture association task with 40 learners who hear words in an unfamiliar language (Mandarin) with and without a filtering of oral features. Symbolic associations arise more rapidly and accurately for sounds containing oral features compared to sounds bearing only pitch features, an effect also reported in experiments with infants. The results imply that, beyond a competence to learn and use symbols, the rise of symbolic language rests on the types of signs that a modality of expression affords.

show abstract

Integrating Cognitive Linguistics and language evolution research

Cited by 17 publications

References 74 publications

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

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

The Human Brain Does Not Need High Levels of Motivation to Learn a Foreign Language: Motivation Has Had its Day

The Structural Effects of Modality on the Rise of Symbolic Language: A Rebuttal of Evolutionary Accounts and a Laboratory Demonstration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About