Syntax: Its Evolution and Its Representation in the Brain

Poeppel (2008) observes that there is no clear correspondence between units of analysis in linguistics (especially the abstract and arbitrary-looking principles of syntax) and biological units of neuroscience, concluding that current neurolinguistic research presents a case of cross-sterilization, rather than cross-fertilization. Here the proposal is developed that decomposing syntax into intermediate evolutionary layers, into its evolutionary primitives, not only makes syntax compatible with gradualist accounts, but it also renders it more tangible and less abstract. In this approach, at least some complexities (and oddities) of syntax, such as Subjacency effects and the small clause core, can be seen as side-effects/by-products of evolutionary tinkering. It is conceivable that such evolutionary considerations are a necessary missing ingredient in any attempt to establish links between the postulates of syntax and the units of neuroscience. This article considers concrete linguistic data and suggestions as to where and how to look for neurobiological correlates of syntax.

[1]  R. Jackendoff.  Possible stages in the evolution of the language capacity , 1999, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[2]  Grant Goodall,et al.  Parallel Structures in Syntax: Coordination, Causatives, and Restructuring , 2009 .

[3]  Noam Chomsky.  Three Factors in Language Design , 2005, Linguistic Inquiry.

[4]  Christer Platzack,et al.  A Grammer without Functional Categories: A Syntactic Study of Early Swedish Child Language , 1990, Nordic Journal of Linguistics.

[5]  John Robert Ross,et al.  Constraints on variables in syntax , 1967 .

[6]  A. Monaco,et al.  A forkhead-domain gene is mutated in a severe speech and language disorder , 2001, Nature.

[7]  Dominique Sportiche,et al.  The position of subjects , 1991 .

[8]  Alison Wray.  Formulaic Language and the Lexicon: Formulaic Language and the Lexicon , 2002 .

[9]  Anna R. Kinsella.  Language Evolution and Syntactic Theory , 2009 .

[10]  Felipe De Brigard,et al.  The Origins of Meaning: Language in the Light of Evolution , 2009 .

[11]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  The Minimalist Program , 1992 .

[12]  G. Deutscher.  Syntactic Change in Akkadian: The Evolution of Sentential Complementation , 2000 .

[13]  Andrew Nevins,et al.  Two Case Studies in Phonological Universals: A View from Artificial Grammars , 2010, Biolinguistics.

[14]  Željko Bošković,et al.  Be careful where you float your quantifiers , 2004 .

[15]  J. Bobaljik.  Morphosyntax : the syntax of verbal inflection , 1995 .

[16]  David Lebeaux,et al.  Language acquisition and the form of the grammar , 2000 .

[17]  R. Jackendoff.  Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution , 2002 .

[18]  B. Bogin,et al.  Language and life history: a new perspective on the development and evolution of human language. , 2006, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[19]  Duk-Ho An,et al.  Clauses in Noncanonical Positions at the Syntax‐Phonology Interface , 2007 .

[20]  S. Pinker,et al.  Natural language and natural selection , 1990, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[21]  Marga Reis.  Extractions from verb-second clauses in German? , 1995 .

[22]  J. Ouhalla.  Functional Categories and Parametric Variation , 1991 .

[23]  S. J. Keyser,et al.  Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure , 2002 .

[24]  Ljiljana Progovac.  WHAT USE IS HALF A CLAUSE , 2008 .

[25]  Adrian Akmajian,et al.  Sentence types and the form-function fit , 1984 .

[26]  T. Stowell.  Subjects Across Categories , 1983, The Linguistic Review.

[27]  Luigi Burzio.  Intransitive verbs and Italian auxiliaries , 1981 .

[28]  C. Code.  First in, last out?: The evolution of aphasic lexical speech automatisms to agrammatism and the evolution of human communication , 2005 .

[29]  David Lightfoot,et al.  Subjacency and Sex. , 1991 .

[30]  Richard S. Kayne,et al.  French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle , 1975 .

[31]  Cedric Boeckx,et al.  Islands , 2008, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[32]  Thomas Roeper,et al.  7. The narrowing acquisition path: From expressive small clauses to declaratives , 2006 .

[33]  Kleanthes K. Grohmann,et al.  Remark: Putting Phases in Perspective , 2007 .

[34]  B. J. Meira.  Adverbs and functional heads: a cross-linguistic perspective , 2011 .

[35]  Andrew Radford,et al.  SMALL CHILDREN'S SMALL CLAUSES , 1988 .

[36]  Gregory T. Stump.  The semantic variability of absolute constructions , 1984 .

[37]  D. Bickerton.  Language and Species , 1990 .

[38]  Ljiljana Progovac,et al.  11. When clauses refuse to be recursive: An evolutionary perspective , 2010 .

[39]  Z. Harris,et al.  Foundations of language , 1941 .

[40]  Thomas Roeper.  Universal bilingualism , 1999 .

[41]  김상혁.  영어의 능격성(Ergativity) , 2003 .

[42]  Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini,et al.  The Evolution of the Narrow Faculty of Language: The Skeptical View and a Reasonable Conjecture , 2005 .

[43]  Carson T. Schütze.  On the Nature of Default Case , 2001 .

[44]  Dominique Sportiche,et al.  Agreement, word order and conjunction in some varieties of Arabic , 1994 .

[45]  Manfred Krifka,et al.  Functional Similarities between Bimanual Coordination and Topic/Comment Structure , 2007 .

[46]  Juan Uriagereka.  Syntactic Anchors: On Semantic Structuring , 2008 .

[47]  Susan Bowsfield.  The Symbolic Species: The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain , 2004 .

[48]  Hedde Zeijlstra,et al.  Hard and soft conditions on the Faculty of Language: constituting parametric variation , 2008 .

[49]  Noam Chomsky.  Derivation by phase , 1999 .

[50]  Arthur Stepanov,et al.  The End of CED? Minimalism and Extraction Domains , 2007 .

[51]  Cheng-Teh James Huang,et al.  Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar , 1998 .

[52]  R. Gadagkar.  Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution , 2005 .

[53]  David M. Perlmutter.  Impersonal Passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis , 1978 .

[54]  Denis Bouchard,et al.  On the content of empty categories , 1982 .

[55]  Ljiljana Progovac,et al.  The Urge to Merge: Ritual Insult and the Evolution of Syntax , 2009, Biolinguistics.

[56]  M. Studdert-Kennedy,et al.  Approaches To The Evolution Of Language: Social And Cognitive Bases , 1998 .

[57]  Ljiljana Progovac,et al.  Sex and Syntax: Subjacency Revisited , 2009, Biolinguistics.

[58]  Maria Teresa Guasti,et al.  Language acquisition : the growth of grammar , 2002 .

[59]  S. Pinker,et al.  The past and future of the past tense , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[60]  Ljiljana Progovac,et al.  ON PROTOLINGUISTIC "FOSSILS": SUBJECT-VERB VS. VERB-SUBJECT STRUCTURES , 2010 .

[61]  S. Kennison.  Reference and proper names : A theory of N-movement in syntax and Logical Form , 2001 .

[62]  P. Maclean.  Psychosomatic Disease and the "Visceral Brain": Recent Developments Bearing on the Papez Theory of Emotion , 1949, Psychosomatic medicine.

[63]  J. Kegl.  Creation through contact : Sign language emergence and sign language change in Nicaragua , 1999 .

[64]  J. Gonda.  The character of the Indo-European moods : with special regard to Greek and Sanskrit , 1957 .

[65]  Friedemann Pulvermüller,et al.  The Neuroscience of Language: On Brain Circuits of Words and Serial Order , 2003 .

[66]  S. Carroll.  Endless forms most beautiful : the new science of evo devo and the making of the animal kingdom , 2005 .

[67]  Martin Haspelmath,et al.  Approaches to grammaticalization , 1992 .

[68]  Boban Arsenijević,et al.  Recursion as a Human Universal and as a Primitive , 2010, Biolinguistics.

[69]  Ivan A. Sag,et al.  Book Reviews: Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar and German in Head-driven Phrase-structure Grammar , 1996, CL.

[70]  Ljiljana Progovac,et al.  2. The syntax of nonsententials: Small clauses and phrases at the root , 2006 .

[71]  Tim Stowell,et al.  Origins of phrase structure , 1981 .