The Evolution of Language
The Evolution of Language
1 The topic called “evolution of language”
Questions about the “evolution of language” cannot be pursued without
first clarifying what we mean by “language.”
“The subject “evolution of language” is a very fashionable one… There are a few
problems about it. One problem is that the topic doesn’t exist. Small problem…
Furthermore, everyone knows it doesn’t exist. Evolution involves changes in the
genomic characters of the organism. Languages are not organisms, they don’t
have genomes, they don’t evolve. Languages change, but they don’t evolve.
What evolves is the language capacity of users of language, i.e., human beings…
suppose a biologist submitted a paper on the evolution of the eye. Consider that
he has no idea of what an eye is and says that an eye is maybe something that you
use to watch television. People would laugh. You couldn’t submit a paper like
that. But that is exactly what the literature on the evolution of language is about.
It doesn’t tell you what they think language is, just that language is something
used for communication, which is about like saying that an eye is used to watch
television.” (Chomsky sa:221–222, bold mine)
The topic called “evolution of language”
1
The Evolution of Language
2 Three main questions in the study of language
The three main questions in the study of language since the cognitive
revolution: What is language? How is it acquired? and How did it evolve?
The fundamental biolinguistic question:
“The most fundamental question in the study of the human language
faculty is its place in the natural world: what kind of biological system it is,
and how it relates to other systems in our own species and others.” (PJ:202)
Three main questions in the study of language
2
The Evolution of Language
3 The study of the evolution of language
“The empirical study of the evolution of language is beset with difficulties.
Linguistic behavior does not fossilize…” (HCF:1571)
““language” does not fossilize” (FHC:185)
The study of the evolution of language
3
The Evolution of Language
4 Two central questions in the study of the evolution of FL
 Which aspects of the faculty of language (FL) are specific to language,
therefore central to FL, and which aspects are “exaptations” from other
human cognitive or non-cognitive systems? For example, the linguistic
functions of the “speech organs” (teeth, tongue, vocal folds, etc.) are each
a secondary “exaptation” from more basic, nonlinguistic biological
functions.
 Which aspects of FL are specific to humans, and which aspects are shared
with nonhuman animals? For example, is the permanently descended
larynx a specific human trait? (No.) Or is it also found in some
nonhuman animals? (Yes.) Is discrete infinity unique to human
cognition? (Yes.) Or is there any evidence for discrete infinity in
nonhuman animal cognition? (No.)
Two central questions in the study of the evolution of FL
4
The Evolution of Language
5 Central issues in the study of the evolution of FL
1 Apparent discontinuity between animal “communication”
systems and human language (How did we get from there to here?)
Natural language is sharply different in quality from nonhuman
“communication” (or signaling) systems (HCF). Expressive power; openended: potentially infinite, recursive; “arbitrariness of signs;” “double
articulation, duality of structure;” “displacement;” “structuredependence.” “Propositional thought” (Hinzen 2007).
Central issues in the study of the evolution of FL
5
The Evolution of Language
2 Language evolution: gradual or saltational?
Gradualism vs. Discontinuity (Fitch 2010, HCF); “perhaps the oldest
argument in evolutionary theory” (Fitch 2010:46); gradual change vs.
saltation; gradualists vs. saltationists (Fitch 2010)
Two alternatives:
1 Apparent discontinuity is real. The evolution of language was saltational.
The appearance of language was a Great Leap Forward (Chomsky 2004,
2007)
2 Gradual change despite apparent discontinuity; no discontinuities
during the evolution of language
Central issues in the study of the evolution of FL
6
The Evolution of Language
3 Continuity versus exaptation
Did human language evolve
 “by gradual extension of preexisting communication systems” (the
continuity view), or
 “important aspects of language have been exapted away from their
previous adaptive function (e.g., spatial or numerical reasoning,
Machiavellian social scheming, tool-making)” (the exaptation view)
(HCF)
Central issues in the study of the evolution of FL
7
The Evolution of Language
Exaptation (formerly called “preadaptation”)
“putting old parts to new uses” (Fitch 2010:63); “shifts in function” (ibid.,
64); “adaptation of an old organ to a new function” (Pinker 1997:171).
 insect wings and bird feathers exapted for flight, from their original
function of thermoregulation (Pinker and Bloom 1990, Pinker 1997)
 the famous permanently descended larynx in humans, which begins to
slowly descend at age three months, reaching its low position at the age
of four years, and descends a second time in boys around puberty (Fitch
2010:308–328).
Central issues in the study of the evolution of FL
8
The Evolution of Language
4 What is language “for” (if anything)?
 Is language an adaptation for communication?
Chomsky, Fitch and Hauser: No.
Pinker and Jackendoff: Yes.
Pinker and Jackendoff: “the language faculty evolved in the human lineage
for the communication of complex propositions.” (PJ:204)
“language is a complex adaptation for communication which evolved
piecemeal” (PJ: 201)
 Human language as a spandrel (Chomsky, Fitch and Hauser)
Central issues in the study of the evolution of FL
9
The Evolution of Language
Spandrels is architecture
Central issues in the study of the evolution of FL
10
The Evolution of Language
Central issues in the study of the evolution of FL
11
The Evolution of Language
Spandrels in evolutionary biology
A spandrel is a byproduct, “the appearance of some new feature as an
automatic, unselected byproduct.” Spandrels are different from
exaptations in that “spandrels originally had no function” (Fitch 2010:65).
For example, masculinized “male-mimicking” genitalia in female spotted
hyenas (Gould 1997).
Central issues in the study of the evolution of FL
12
The Evolution of Language
Central issues in the study of the evolution of FL
13
The Evolution of Language
FLN, the faculty of language in the narrow sense, may be a non-adaptive
spandrel (HCF:1573). “We consider the possibility that certain specific
aspects of the faculty of language are “spandrels”—by-products of
preexisting constraints rather than end products of a history of natural
selection” (HCF:1574).
Central issues in the study of the evolution of FL
14
The Evolution of Language
5 What IS language (anyway)?
What does “language” mean in discussions about its evolution?
Chomsky, Fitch, Hauser:
Faculty of Language in the broad
 sense FLB
Language = Faculty of Language
 Faculty of Language in the narrow
sense FLN
Language is composed of a “myriad component mechanisms,” which
“include both peripheral mechanisms necessary for the externalization of
language, and core linguistic computational/cognitive mechanisms”
(FHC:181).
Central issues in the study of the evolution of FL
15
The Evolution of Language
6 Faculty of language in the broad sense (FLB) and in the
narrow sense (FLN)
(HCF:1570)
Faculty of language in the broad sense (FLB) and in the narrow sense (FLN)
16
The Evolution of Language
FLB:
 sensory-motor system
 conceptual-intentional system
 “computational mechanisms for recursion, providing the capacity to
generate an infinite range of expressions from a finite set of elements”
(=FLN)
much of it is shared with nonhuman animals
FLN:
 recursion: the capacity to generate an infinite range of expressions from a
finite set of elements; “the abstract linguistic computational system alone,
independent of the other systems with which it interacts and interfaces”
(HCF)
apparently unique to man
“a core property of FLN is recursion…, [which] yields discrete infinity”
(HCF:1571)
Faculty of language in the broad sense (FLB) and in the narrow sense (FLN)
17
The Evolution of Language
Relation between FLN and FLB
FLB imposes limitations and conditions on the “usage of the system”, i.e.
FLN (HCF:1571).
“FLN may approximate a kind of “optimal solution” to the problem of
linking the sensory-motor and conceptual-intentional systems. In other
words, the generative processes of the language system may provide a
near-optimal solution that satisfies the interface conditions to FLB”
(HCF:1574).
Evolution of FLN
“The question is whether particular components of the functioning of FLN
are adaptations for language, specifically acted upon by natural selection—
or, even more broadly, whether FLN evolved for reasons other than
communication” (HCF:1574).
Faculty of language in the broad sense (FLB) and in the narrow sense (FLN)
18
The Evolution of Language
7 “Which aspects of language are uniquely human and
uniquely linguistic”? (PJ:201)
FHC: “Something about the faculty of language must be unique in order to explain
the differences between humans and other animals—if only the particular
combination of mechanisms in FLB. We thus made the further, and independent,
terminological proposal to denote that subset of FLB that is both specific to
language and to humans as FLN… FLN is composed of those components of the
overall faculty of language (FLB) that are both unique to humans and unique to
or clearly specialized for language. The contents of FLN are to be empirically
determined. Possible outcomes of this empirical endeavor include that ALL
components of FLB are shared either with other species, or with other nonlinguistic cognitive domains in humans, and only their combination and
organization are unique to humans and language. Alternatively, FLN may turn
out to include a very rich set of interconnected mechanisms, as assumed in many
earlier versions of generative grammar.” (FHC:182, bold mine)
 HCF: one uniquely human aspect only: recursion.
 PJ:201: “We find the hypothesis problematic.”
“Which aspects of language are uniquely human and uniquely linguistic”? (PJ:201)
19
The Evolution of Language
7.1 Vocal imitation: uniquely human and specific to language or
shared?
Vocal imitation: present in man and birds, but virtually absent in apes and
monkeys (HCF:1574–75)
 Vocal imitation (vocal dialects) in birds, dolphins, whales AND humans
(HCF).
 Acquisition of birdsong: critical period, “babbling”/ “subsong” phase
(HCF). Acquisition of language by children: critical period, babbling
phase.

HCF: Vocal imitation is not uniquely human, but shared ( FLB, not
FLN)
“Which aspects of language are uniquely human and uniquely linguistic”? (PJ:201)
20
The Evolution of Language
Caveats:
 No vocal imitation in primates or monkeys. ()
 () Vocal imitation and song acquisition by birds vs. vocal imitation and
language acquisition by human children: analogs, not homologs (HCF).

PJ: Vocal imitation by humans is not shared but uniquely human and
specific to language. Vocal imitation in birds, cetaceans and humans had
to evolve separately. Speech perception and production are evolutionary
adaptations for language.
“Which aspects of language are uniquely human and uniquely linguistic”? (PJ:201)
21
The Evolution of Language
8 Is language “perfect but useless” or “useful but imperfect”?
(cf. PJ:229)
“Chomsky’s recent claims about language have it backwards. Rather than
being useless but perfect, language is useful but imperfect, just like other
biological systems” (PJ:229).
“offering an adaptive hypothesis as an alternative to our hypothesis
concerning mechanisms is a logical error, as questions of function are
independent of those concerning mechanism.” (FHC:179)
Is language “perfect but useless” or “useful but imperfect”? (cf. PJ:229)
22
The Evolution of Language
9 Adaptation
“The term ‘adaptation’ conceals a conceptual minefield… Definitions run
from diachronic and historical… to purely synchronic and contemporary…
[Therefore,] Without further specification, the statement that “language is
an adaptation” is thus vague enough to have few empirical consequences.”
(FHC:184)
It is easy to misunderstand adaptation. And it regularly happens in
various ways.
Adaptation
23
The Evolution of Language
9.1 Some outstanding misunderstandings of adaptation
9.1.1 Lamarckism
Perhaps the most famous, or infamous, kind of misunderstanding is the
one known as Lamarckism, named after the French biologist Lamarck
(1744–1829), and adopted, at least in part, by Piaget, who was perhaps the
second most famous Lamarckist after Lamarck himself. Lamarckism is the
naïve view that adaptive properties which an organism acquires in its
lifetime may be passed on to offspring, which explains, or, was intended to
explain, how a species may become more and more successful or adaptive
over an extended period of time.
Adaptation
24
The Evolution of Language
9.1.2 Panadaptationism
A second, slightly different, kind of misunderstanding is called
panadaptationism (cf. Fitch 2010). This is the mistaken belief that all of the
properties of an organism are adaptations. The idea that “every aspect of
animal form is an adaptation” translates into ordinary English as the idea
that everything is the way it should be (cf. Fitch 2010:65).
“It would be absurd to suggest that every detail of organismic form or
behavior is an adaptation, or even “adaptive” in the everyday sense of
serving some useful function.” (Fitch 2010:66)
“adaptation (meaning a close fit between innately guided complex form
and complex function) is a process that at present admits of just one
explanatory entity: natural selection (including sexual, kin, and in some
cases perhaps group, selection as special cases).” (Fitch 2010:66)
“it is misleading to ask whether “language,” as a whole, is an adaptation”
(Fitch 2010:66).
Adaptation
25
The Evolution of Language
9.1.3 “Folk theory of evolution”
The folk theory of evolution regards evolution not as a tinkerer, without
planning or foresight, but as an engineer, who plans with foresight (cf.
Fitch 2010). But “Evolution has no foresight, and selection must wait until
a… mutant appears by chance” and then decide whether to allow it to
survive, i.e. select it, or destroy it (Fitch 2010:58).
Adaptation
26
The Evolution of Language
10 Summary and conclusions
Most questions about the design and evolution of language remain open. This is
not surprising, given that, for all the advances in the biological sciences over the
past few decades, many, perhaps all, similar questions of biological design and
evolution as they apply to human beings and, more generally, to other organisms,
are equally open. Virtually nothing is known about animal cognition, which
could explain, for example, why a cockroach turns left when it does, or why
honey bees dance the way they do, etc.
Gradualist accounts do not seem to be able to bridge the gap between humans
and nonhuman animals. The human language faculty remains discontinuous
with animal communication systems. Gradualist attempts to reduce the apparent
discontinuity to piecemeal evolution by natural selection are mostly speculative
in absence of empirical evidence. Language does not fossilize, therefore
hypothetical protolanguages remain, probably forever, unsupported by empirical
evidence.
Summary and conclusions
27
The Evolution of Language
References
Chomsky, N. [2012]. A Conversation with Noam Chomsky: New Insights on
Old Foundations. Edited by Valentina Bambini, Cristiano Chesi, and
Andrea Moro. Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori di Pavia. (online
at: www.phenomenologyandmind.eu/wp.../16_Intervista-CHOMSKY.pdf‎)
Chomsky, N. 2004. Biolinguistics and the human capacity. Lecture at MTA,
Budapest, May 17, 2004.
Chomsky, N. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry
36:1–22.
Chomsky, N. 2006. Biolinguistics and the human capacity, in Chomsky
2006:173–185.
Chomsky, N. 2006. Language and Mind. 3rd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Chomsky, N. 2007. Of minds and language. Biolinguistics 1:9–27.
Fitch, W. T. 2010. The Evolution of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
References
28
The Evolution of Language
Gould, S. J. 1997. The exaptive excellence of spandrels as a term and
prototype. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 94, pp. 10750–10755.
HCF = Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., and Fitch, W. T. 2002. The Faculty of
Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve? Science 298:
1569–1579.
Hinzen, W. 2007. An Essay on Names and Truth. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Johansson, S. 2013. The Talking Neanderthals: What Do Fossils, Genetics,
and Archeology Say? Biolinguistics 7: 35–74.
Gould, S. J. and Lewontin, R. C. 1979. The spandrels of San Marco and the
panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Vol. 205, no. 1161,
581-598.
Pinker, S. & Bloom, P. 1990. Natural language and natural selection.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13 (4): 707–784.
References
29
The Evolution of Language
PJ = Pinker, S. & Jackendoff, R. 2004. The faculty of language: what’s
special about it? Cognition 95:201–236.
Pinker, S. 1997. How the Mind Works. London: Penguin.
Pléh, Cs. 2013. A megismeréstudomány alapjai. Budapest: Typotex.
References
30