1887
Volume 2, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2589-1588
  • E-ISSN: 2589-1596
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

There has been a long-standing controversy in the context of language evolution on whether the original function of human language was internal thought or external communication. However, given the fact that language clearly serves both functions, internalization and externalization must have been co-evolutionarily acted in the emergence of human language. This article proposes a theoretical hypothesis about this co-evolutionary relationship of internalization and externalization, which especially explains the emergence of the human lexicon. To discuss the evolution of language from a comprehensive perspective, this article proposes a promising model that integrates two approaches with different standpoints: generative grammar and cognitive linguistics. This paper also examines the definition and nature of the lexicon and lexical items based on this integrated model. The hypothesis presented here demonstrates that the co-evolutionary work of internalization and externalization has been involved in two processes in the development of the lexicon: the establishment of syntactic objects (lexical items) and the improvement of creativity responsible for the expansion of lexicon size. The main conclusion is that these processes have formed a positive feedback loop and provided our lexicon with complex and unique properties.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/elt.00022.fuj
2021-01-15
2021-10-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adorni, R. & Proverbio, A. M.
    (2012) The neural manifestation of the word concreteness effect: An electrical neuroimaging study. Neuropsychologia, 50, 880–891. doi:  10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.01.028
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.01.028 [Google Scholar]
  2. Berwick, R. C. & Chomsky, N.
    (2016) Why only us: Language and evolution. Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262034241.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262034241.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  3. Borer, H.
    (2013) Taking form: Structuring sense Vol. III. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263936.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263936.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  4. (2014) The categories of roots. In A. Alexiadou , H. Borer , & F. Schäfer (Eds.), The syntax of roots and the roots of syntax (pp.112–148). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665266.003.0006
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665266.003.0006 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bybee, J.
    (2012) Domain-general processes as the basis for grammar. In T. Maggie & K. R. Gibson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language evolution (pp.528–536). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Chomsky, N.
    (1970) Remarks on nominalization. In R. A. Jacobs & P. S. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar (pp.184–221). Waltham, MA: Ginn.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. (1981) Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (1986) Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. (1995) The Minimalist program. Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. (2005) Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 1–22. doi:  10.1162/0024389052993655
    https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389052993655 [Google Scholar]
  11. (2007a) Approaching UG from below. In U. Sauerland & H. M. Gärtner (Eds.). Interfaces + recursion = language? (pp.1–29). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (2007b) Of minds and language. Biolinguistics, 1, 9–27.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. (2010) Some simple evo-devo theses: How true might they be for language?In R. K. Larson , V. Déprez , & H. Yamakido . (Eds). The evolution of human language: Biolinguistic perspectives (pp.45–62). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511817755.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511817755.003 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2014) Minimal recursion: Exploring the prospects. In T. Roeper & M. Speas (Eds.), Recursion: Complexity in cognition (pp.1–15). Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑05086‑7_1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05086-7_1 [Google Scholar]
  15. Chomsky, N. , Gallego, A. J. , & Ott, D.
    (2019) Generative grammar and the faculty of language: Insights, questions, and challenges. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 0, 229–261. doi:  10.5565/rev/catjl.288
    https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.288 [Google Scholar]
  16. Embick, D.
    (2015) The morpheme: A theoretical introduction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9781501502569
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501502569 [Google Scholar]
  17. Embick, D. & Noyer, R.
    (2007) Distributed morphology and the syntax-morphology interface. In G. Ramchand & C. Reiss . (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces (pp.289–324). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Fitch, W. T.
    (2017) On externalization and cognitive continuity in language evolution. Mind & Language, 32 (5), 597–606. doi:  10.1111/mila.12162
    https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12162 [Google Scholar]
  19. Fodor, J. A.
    (1983) The modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. 10.7551/mitpress/4737.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4737.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  20. Fujita, H.
    (2017) On the emergence of human language: With special reference to the evolution of lexical items (Unpublished master’s thesis). Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. (2019) From lexical protolanguage to modern language with functional categories. Paper presented at the6th edition of the Protolang conference series (Protolang 6), Lisbon. Available online: https://sites.google.com/view/protolang-6/program
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Fujita, K.
    (2013) Seiseibumpo kara shinkagengogaku e: Seiseibumpo no aratana kuwadate [From generative grammar to evolutionary linguistics: New generative enterprise]. In M. Ike-uchi & G. Takuya . (Eds). Seisei gengo kenkyu no ima [Current generative linguistic research] (pp.95–123). Tokyo: Hitsuzi Shobo (in Japanese).
  23. (2017) On the parallel evolution of syntax and lexicon: A Merge-only view. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 43 (B), 178–192. doi:  10.1016/j.jneuroling.2016.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2016.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  24. Golston, C.
    (2018) Phi-features in animal cognition. Biolinguistics, 12, 55–98.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Halle, M. & Marantz, A.
    (1993) Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser . (Eds). The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of sylvain bromberger (pp.111–176). Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Harley, H.
    (2014) On the identity of roots. Theoretical Linguistics, 40 (3–4), 225–276. doi:  10.1515/tl‑2014‑0010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2014-0010 [Google Scholar]
  27. Hoffman, P.
    (2016) The meaning of ‘life’ and other abstract words: Insights from neuropsychology. Journal of Neuropsychology, 10 (2), 317–343. doi:  10.1111/jnp.12065
    https://doi.org/10.1111/jnp.12065 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hurford, J. R.
    (2018) Mutation, modularity, merge, communication and selection. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 21, 76–79. doi:  10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.01.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.01.011 [Google Scholar]
  29. Imai, M.
    (2013) Kotoba no hattatsu no nazo wo toku [The enigma of lexical acquisition: How children construct the system of the lexicon]. Tokyo: Chikuma Shobo (in Japanese).
  30. Johnson, M.
    (1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  31. Kousta, S. , Vigliocco, G. , Vinson, D. P. , Andrews, M. , & Del Campo, E.
    (2011) The representation of abstract words: Why emotion matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(1), 14–34. doi:  10.1037/a0021446
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021446 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kyoya, I.
    (2014) The relation between abstract concepts and concrete information: A comparison of concrete words and abstract words. The journal of cultural sciences, 636, 1031–1023 (in Japanese).
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  34. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Langacker, R.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. (2000) A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp.1–63). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Marantz, A.
    (1997) No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 4(2), 201–225.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Matsumoto, D.
    (2020) Blind Merge (Unpublished master’s thesis). Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Matsuzawa, T.
    (2001) Primate foundations of human intelligence: a view of tool use in nonhuman primates and fossil hominids. In T. Matsuzawa (Ed.), Primate origins of human cognition and behavior (pp.3–25). Tokyo: Springer-Verlag. 10.1007/978‑4‑431‑09423‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-09423-4 [Google Scholar]
  40. Newmeyer, F. J.
    (1998) Language form and language function. Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Pepperberg, I. M.
    (1987) Acquisition of the same/different concept by an African Grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus): Learning with respect to categories of color, shape, and material. Animal Learning & Behavior, 15 (4), 423–432. 10.3758/BF03205051
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03205051 [Google Scholar]
  42. (2002) Cognitive and communicative abilities of Grey Parrots. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 83–87. doi:  10.1111/1467‑8721.00174
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00174 [Google Scholar]
  43. Pinker, S.
    (2010) The cognitive niche: Coevolution of intelligence, sociality, and language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 8893–8999. doi:  10.1073/pnas.0914630107
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0914630107 [Google Scholar]
  44. Pleyer, M. & Winters, J.
    (2014) Integrating cognitive linguistics and language evolution research. Theoria et Historia Scientiarum, 11, 19–44. doi:  10.12775/ths‑2014‑002
    https://doi.org/10.12775/ths-2014-002 [Google Scholar]
  45. Pulman, S. G.
    (1983) Word meaning and belief. London: Croom Helm.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Schlenker, P. , Chemla, E. , & Zuberbühler, K.
    (2016) What do monkey calls mean?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(12), 894–904. doi:  10.1016/j.tics.2016.10.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  47. Seyfarth, R. M. , Cheney, D. L. , & Marler, P.
    (1980) Monkey responses to three different alarm calls: Evidence of predator classification and semantic communication. Science210 (4471), 801–803. doi:  10.1126/science.7433999
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7433999 [Google Scholar]
  48. Taylor, J. R.
    3 (2003)Linguistic categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Tomasello, M.
    (1999) The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, Mass.; London, UK: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. (2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. (2008) Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA; London, England: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/7551.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7551.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  52. Vigliocco, G. , Kousta, S.-T. , Della Rosa, P. A. , Vinson, D. P. , Tettamanti, M. , Devlin, J. T. , & Cappa, S. F.
    (2014) The neural representation of abstract words: The role of emotion. Cerebral Cortex, 24, 1767–1777. doi:  10.1093/cercor/bht025
    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bht025 [Google Scholar]
  53. Vonk, J. M. J. , Obler, L. K. , & Jonkers, R.
    (2019) Levels of abstractness in semantic noun and verb processing: The role of sensory-perceptual and sensory‑motor information. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 48 (3), 601–615. doi:  10.1007/s10936‑018‑9621‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-018-9621-4 [Google Scholar]
  54. Wright, A. A. , & Cumming, W. W.
    (1971) Color-naming functions for the pigeon. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 15, 7–17. doi:  10.1901/jeab.1971.15‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1971.15-7 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/elt.00022.fuj
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/elt.00022.fuj
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): co-evolution; externalization; internalization; lexical items as concepts; lexicon
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error