Prolegomena to a Future Science of Biolinguistics

Abstract

This essay reviews some of the problems that face biolinguistics if it is to someday succeed in understanding human language from a biological and evolutionary viewpoint. Although numerous sociological problems impede progress at present, these are ultimately soluble. The greater challenges include delineating the computational mechanisms that underlie different aspects of language competence, as implemented in the brain, and under-standing the epigenetic processes by which they arise. The ultimate chal-lenge will be to develop a theory of meaning incorporating non-linguistic conceptual representations, as they exist in the mind of a dog or chimpan-zee, which requires extensions of information theory incorporating context-dependence and relevance. Each of these problems is daunting alone; to-gether they make understanding the biology of language one of the most challenging sets of problems in modern science.

What Connects Biolinguistics and Biosemiotics?

“…Biolinguists may find ideas for addressing the 'semiotic challenge' (Fitch 2009) in the foundational texts for biosemiotics (e.g., Favareau 2010). Likewise, biosemioticians who are interested in human language simply cannot afford to bypass biolinguistics.…”

“…Jacob's mantra works for biolinguists; and they have a much better chance at progressing along their chosen path to gain a better understanding of the faculty of language. But the "semiotic challenge" (Fitch 2009) remains for biolinguistics; and it remains to be seen if future cross-disciplinary collaboration will bring forth any hybrids who "can change the future" (Latour 1993: 11).…”

“…The online Journal Biolinguistics published its first volume in 2007. Both movements have recently articulated formative statements (Fitch 2009, Kull et al 2009), which will be addressed in more detail after first establishing an important characteristic that undeniably connects biolinguists with biosemioticians.…”

“…Both movements received formative statements outlining fundamental questions and issues for the future in 2009. W. Tecumseh Fitch articulated the "Prolegomena to a future science of biolinguistics" (Fitch 2009), while biologist/ semiotician Kalevi Kull collaborated with biological anthropologist Terrence Deacon, molecular biologists Claus Emmeche and Jesper Hoffmeyer, and the semiotic theorist Frederik Stjernfelt on the eight surprisingly brief "Theses on biosemiotics: Prolegomena to a theoretical biology" (Kull et al 2009).…”

Biolinguistics or Physicolinguistics? Is the Third Factor Helpful or Harmful in Explaining Language?

“…A further consideration is that neurons are rather unreliable as circuit elements, prone to misfiring and occasionally dying. This is a constraint on neural processing that has the consequence that an optimal neural circuit (assuming, plausibly, that reliability is a desideratum) needs to have enough redundancy to make it highly robust against neuron failure, rather different from what might seem optimal to an engineer used to reliable electronic components (Fitch 2009), or to a theoretician focusing on minimalistic elegance.…”