Language Evolution and Computation Bibliography

Our site (www.isrl.uiuc.edu/amag/langev) retired, please use https://langev.com instead.
Ray Jackendoff
2011
What is the human language faculty?: Two viewsPDF
Language 87(3):586--624, 2011
Abstract In addition to providing an account of the empirical facts of language, a theory that aspires to account for language as a biologically based human faculty should seek a graceful integration of linguistic phenomena with what is known about other human ...
2009
Parallels and nonparallels between language and music
Music perception 26(3):195--204, 2009
THE PARALLELS BETWEEN LANGUAGE AND MUSIC CAN BE explored only in the context of (a) the differences between them, and (b) those parallels that are also shared with other cognitive capacities. The two differ in many aspects of structure and function, and, with the ...
The Components of Language: What's Specific to Language, and What's Specific to HumansPDF
Language Universals 7.0:126-152, 2009
Hauser, Chomsky, and Fitch (HCF) proposed that recursion is the only thing that distinguishes language (a) from other human capacities, and (b) from the capacities of animals. These factors are independent. The narrow faculty of language might include more than recursion, ...MORE ⇓
Hauser, Chomsky, and Fitch (HCF) proposed that recursion is the only thing that distinguishes language (a) from other human capacities, and (b) from the capacities of animals. These factors are independent. The narrow faculty of language might include more than recursion, falsifying (a). Or it might consist only of recursion, although parts of the broad faculty might be uniquely human as well, falsifying (b). This chapter presents a view that is contrasted with HCF's above. It shows that there is considerably more of language that is special, though still a plausible product of the processes of evolution. It assesses the key bodies of evidence, coming to a different reading from HCF's. The chapter organizes the discussion by distinguishing the conceptual, sensorimotor, and specifically linguistic aspects of the broad language faculty in turn.
2007
Linguistics in cognitive science: The state of the artPDF
Linguistic review 24(4):347, 2007
Abstract The special issue of The Linguistic Review on “The Role of Linguistics in Cognitive Science” presents a variety of viewpoints that complement or contrast with the perspective offered in Foundations of Language (Jackendoff 2002a). The present article is a response ...
A parallel architecture perspective on language processingPDF
Brain Research 1146:2--22, 2007
This article sketches the Parallel Architecture, an approach to the structure of grammar that contrasts with mainstream generative grammar (MGG) in that (a) it treats phonology, syntax, and semantics as independent generative components whose structures are linked by ...
2006
Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10(9):413--418, 2006
What roles do syntax and semantics have in the grammar of a language? What are the consequences of these roles for syntactic structure, and why does it matter? We sketch the Simpler Syntax Hypothesis, which holds that much of the explanatory role attributed to syntax in ...MORE ⇓
What roles do syntax and semantics have in the grammar of a language? What are the consequences of these roles for syntactic structure, and why does it matter? We sketch the Simpler Syntax Hypothesis, which holds that much of the explanatory role attributed to syntax in contemporary linguistics is properly the responsibility of semantics. This rebalancing permits broader coverage of empirical linguistic phenomena and promises a tighter integration of linguistic theory into the cognitive scientific enterprise. We suggest that the general perspective of the Simpler Syntax Hypothesis is well suited to approaching language processing and language evolution, and to computational applications that draw upon linguistic insights.
2005
The nature of the language faculty and its implications for evolution of language (Reply to Fitch, Hauser, and Chomsky)PDF
Cognition, 2005
In a continuation of the conversation with Fitch, Chomsky, and Hauser on the evolution of language, we examine their defense of the claim that the uniquely human, language-specific part of the language faculty (the ``narrow language faculty'') consists only of recursion, and that ...MORE ⇓
In a continuation of the conversation with Fitch, Chomsky, and Hauser on the evolution of language, we examine their defense of the claim that the uniquely human, language-specific part of the language faculty (the ``narrow language faculty'') consists only of recursion, and that this part cannot be considered an adaptation to communication. We argue that their characterization of the narrow language faculty is problematic for many reasons, including its dichotomization of cognitive capacities into those that are utterly unique and those that are identical to nonlinguistic or nonhuman capacities, omitting capacities that may have been substantially modified during human evolution. We also question their dichotomy of the current utility versus original function of a trait, which omits traits that are adaptations for current use, and their dichotomy of humans and animals, which conflates similarity due to common function and similarity due to inheritance from a recent common ancestor. We show that recursion, though absent from other animals' communications systems, is found in visual cognition, hence cannot be the sole evolutionary development that granted language to humans. Finally, we note that despite Fitch et al.'s denial, their view of language evolution is tied to Chomsky's conception of language itself, which identifies combinatorial productivity with a core of ``narrow syntax.'' An alternative conception, in which combinatoriality is spread across words and constructions, has both empirical advantages and greater evolutionary plausibility.
Cognition 95(2):201-236, 2005
We examine the question of which aspects of language are uniquely human and uniquely linguistic in light of recent suggestions by Hauser, Chomsky, and Fitch that the only such aspect is syntactic recursion, the rest of language being either specific to humans but not to language ...MORE ⇓
We examine the question of which aspects of language are uniquely human and uniquely linguistic in light of recent suggestions by Hauser, Chomsky, and Fitch that the only such aspect is syntactic recursion, the rest of language being either specific to humans but not to language (e.g. words and concepts) or not specific to humans (e.g. speech perception). We find the hypothesis problematic. It ignores the many aspects of grammar that are not recursive, such as phonology, morphology, case, agreement, and many properties of words. It is inconsistent with the anatomy and neural control of the human vocal tract. And it is weakened by experiments suggesting that speech perception cannot be reduced to primate audition, that word learning cannot be reduced to fact learning, and that at least one gene involved in speech and language was evolutionarily selected in the human lineage but is not specific to recursion. The recursion-only claim, we suggest, is motivated by Chomsky's recent approach to syntax, the Minimalist Program, which de-emphasizes the same aspects of language. The approach, however, is sufficiently problematic that it cannot be used to support claims about evolution. We contest related arguments that language is not an adaptation, namely that it is 'perfect,' non-redundant, unusable in any partial form, and badly designed for communication. The hypothesis that language is a complex adaptation for communication which evolved piecemeal avoids all these problems.
2002
Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution
Oxford University Press, 2002
Already hailed as a masterpiece, Foundations of Language offers a brilliant overhaul of the last thirty-five years of research in generative linguistics and related fields." Few books really deserve the cliche'this should be read by every researcher in the field,'" writes Steven ...MORE ⇓
Already hailed as a masterpiece, Foundations of Language offers a brilliant overhaul of the last thirty-five years of research in generative linguistics and related fields." Few books really deserve the cliche'this should be read by every researcher in the field,'" writes Steven ...
1999
Trends in Cognitive Sciences 3(7):272-279, 1999
Much current discussion of the evolution of language has concerned the emergence of a stage in which single vocal or gestural signals were used symbolically. Assuming the existence of such a stage, the present review decomposes the emergence of modern language into nine partially ...MORE ⇓
Much current discussion of the evolution of language has concerned the emergence of a stage in which single vocal or gestural signals were used symbolically. Assuming the existence of such a stage, the present review decomposes the emergence of modern language into nine partially ordered steps, each of which contributes to precision and variety of expression. Bickerton's proposed `protolanguage' falls somewhere in the middle of this succession. In addition to the by-now accepted evidence from language learning, language disorders, and ape language experiments, modern languages provide evidence of these stages of evolution through the presence of detectable `fossils' in vocabulary and grammar.