Protolanguage and mechanisms of meaning construal in interaction

Pleyer, Michael

doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2017.01.003

Cited by 23 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This in turn subsequently leads to them becoming fully entrenched and acquire that status of grammaticalized and conventionalized constructions, or protoconstructions, proper. This is in line with the usage-based approach, which sees linguistic constructions as abstractions from frequently reoccurring instances of language -or in this case protolanguage -in interaction (Pleyer 2017). …”

supporting

confidence: 77%

“…

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As this outline shows, then, dialogic and interactive approaches to the emergence of structure have much to offer for language evolution research (Pleyer 2017).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Language evolution and the emergence of constructions in interaction

Pleyer¹

2018

Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on the Evolution of Language (Evolang12)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This talk explores the evolution of language from the perspective of dialogic construction grammar, dialogic syntax, emergent grammar and interactional usage-based approaches (Goldberg 2006;Du Bois 2014;Hopper 2015, Brône & Zima 2014Pleyer 2017). These approaches all focus on "the emergence of grammatical patterning in on-line production, dialogically, and as a cooperative achievement" (Fried & Östman 2005(Fried & Östman : 1756. This talk argues that investigations of the evolutionary emergence of grammatical structure and constructions need to pay attention to this focus on the online, in-vivo interactional emergence of constructions and their subsequent conventionalization.As I argue, this process of interactive constructionalization also presents a way how the first protoconstructions could have emerged in protolinguistic hominin communities.In interaction, cognitive processes such as priming, conceptual pacts, intersubjective alignment, local schematization and routinization, microentrenchment and resonance activation can lead to the emergence of a temporary local network of constructions (Brône & Zima 2014). In the case of frequently recurring routines and practices, ad hoc constructions that are frequently microentrenched also acquire increasing degrees of entrenchment and conventionalization. Over time, this leads to these constructions emerging more easily and more frequently in interactions. This in turn subsequently leads to them becoming fully entrenched and acquire that status of grammaticalized and conventionalized constructions, or protoconstructions, proper. This is in line with the usage-based approach, which sees linguistic constructions as abstractions from frequently reoccurring instances of language -or in this case protolanguage -in interaction (Pleyer 2017). 382This paper is distributed under a Creative Commons CC-BY-ND license.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 77%

“…

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Language evolution and the emergence of constructions in interaction

Pleyer¹

2018

Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on the Evolution of Language (Evolang12)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the recent literature, usage-based construction grammar has repeatedly been suggested as a good candidate for modeling both the emergence of language from a hypothetical protolanguage and the development of fully-fledged language across the ontogenetic and historical timescales (e.g. Johansson 2016; Christiansen and Chater 2017;Pleyer 2017). This is quite remarkable given the fact that construction grammar originally emerged as a theory of linguistic knowledge on the level of the individual (see e.g.…”

Section: Language Evolution and Change: Towards An Evolutionary Synthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Language change and language evolution: Cousins, siblings, twins?

Hartmann¹

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relationship between “language change” and “language evolution” has recently become subject to some debate regarding the scope of both concepts. It has been claimed that while the latter used to refer to language origins in the first place, both terms can now, to a certain extent, be used synonymously. In this paper, I argue that this can partly be explained by parallel develop-ments both in historical linguistics and in the field of language evolution research that have led to a considerable amount of convergence between both fields. Both have adopted usage-based approaches and data-driven methods, which entails similar research questions and similar perspectives on the phenomena under investigation. This has ramifications for current models and theories of language change (or evolution). Two approaches in particular – the concept of com-plex adaptive systems and construction grammar – have been combined in integrated approaches that seek to explain both language emergence and language change over historical time. I discuss the potential and limitations of this integrated approach, and I argue that there is still some unex-plored potential for cross-fertilization.

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

Protolanguage and mechanisms of meaning construal in interaction

Cited by 23 publications

References 68 publications

Language evolution and the emergence of constructions in interaction

Language evolution and the emergence of constructions in interaction

Language change and language evolution: Cousins, siblings, twins?

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