The Neurophysiology of Language Processing Shapes the Evolution of Grammar: Evidence from Case Marking

Abstract

Do principles of language processing in the brain affect the way grammar evolves over time or is language change just a matter of socio-historical contingency? While the balance of evidence has been ambiguous and controversial, we identify here a neurophysiological constraint on the processing of language that has a systematic effect on the evolution of how noun phrases are marked by case (i.e. by such contrasts as between the English base form she and the object form her). In neurophysiological experiments across diverse languages we found that during processing, participants initially interpret the first base-form noun phrase they hear (e.g. she…) as an agent (which would fit a continuation like … greeted him), even when the sentence later requires the interpretation of a patient role (as in … was greeted). We show that this processing principle is also operative in Hindi, a language where initial base-form noun phrases most commonly denote patients because many agents receive a special case marker ("ergative") and are often left out in discourse. This finding suggests that the principle is species-wide and independent of the structural affordances of specific languages. As such, the principle favors the development and maintenance of case-marking systems that equate base-form cases with agents rather than with patients. We confirm this evolutionary bias by statistical analyses of phylogenetic signals in over 600 languages worldwide, controlling for confounding effects from language contact. Our findings suggest that at least one core property of grammar systematically adapts in its evolution to the neurophysiological conditions of the brain, independently of socio-historical factors. This opens up new avenues for understanding how specific properties of grammar have developed in tight interaction with the biological evolution of our species.

A Gradualist Scenario for Language Evolution: Precise Linguistic Reconstruction of Early Human (and Neandertal) Grammars

“…Interestingly, in their neurophysiological study of language processing, Bickel et al (2015) found that listeners have a bias toward interpreting the first unmarked noun phrase in a sentence as an agent, which they take to mean that there is a processing bias/preference for accusative case-marking systems, over ergative case-marking systems. Recall from Section What Can Language Variation Tell Us?…”

“…The experimental design in Bickel et al's (2015) study is from the perspective of the listener, rather than the speaker. Even though the listener may show a preference for accusative marking, as it brings about disambiguation more rapidly, intransitive absolutive structures may require less effort on the part of the speaker.…”

“…Geographically speaking, Bickel et al (2015) considered a database of 617 languages and concluded that substantial proportions of ergative languages cluster in the Pacific region (New Guinea, Australia, Oceania) and, to a lesser extent, in South America. This skewed geographical distribution can also be used to engage the hypotheses about hominin migrations, as it may be a result of separate waves of migration out of Africa (see also Section Drawing Some Conclusions about the Grammatical Abilities of Our Ancestors: Engaging the Hominin Timeline).…”

Cross-linguistic psycholinguistics and its critical role in theory development: early beginnings and recent advances

“…Typology-processing links are often based on an implicit assumption that processing mechanisms are the same universally, though this of course remains to be empirically demonstrated (for encouraging progress, see, e.g. Bickel et al, 2015;Dediu & Ladd, 2007, Fedzechkina, Jaeger, & Newport, 2012Fedzechkina, Newport, & Jaeger, submitted;Futrell, Mahowald, & Gibson, in press;Gildea & Temperley, 2010;Gildea & Jaeger, submitted, Graff & Jaeger, 2009;Piantadosi, Tily, & Gibon, 2011). 7. Our use of the term "Phrase Structure theories" is a label of convenience and is not meant to imply that all phrase structure grammars necessarily postulate a universal configurational subject position (thanks to Juergen Bohnemeyer (p.c.)…”

One can be some but some cannot be one: ERP correlates of numerosity incongruence are different for singular and plural

“…Indeed, if core knowledge information is biologically fundamental, its prompt communication must be in some way advantageous. Interestingly enough, core knowledge information would be so relevant to shape the core structure of human languages (Bickel, Witzlack-Makarevich, Choudhary, Schlesewsky, & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, 2015;Christiansen & Chater, 2008;Franzon, Zanini, & Rugani, 2018;Strickland, 2017). To what extent is this true for numerical knowledge?…”