The Experts below are selected from a list of 978 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Mike Dowman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
THE MULTIPLE STAGES OF PROTOLANGUAGE
2015Co-Authors: Mike DowmanAbstract:An ongoing debate concerns whether the words in Protolanguages expressed single atomic concepts (Bickerton, 1990, Tallerman, 2007), or whether they were holophrastic (Wray, 1998; Arbib, 2005). Here we suggest that there is no clear distinction between holophrastic and atomic meanings, as there is no clear definition of what level of conceptualization is atomic. We show that there is a continuum between holophrastic words and words denoting single concepts, depending on how narrow a range of meanings each word denotes. Using a computer model, we show that the type of words occurring in Protolanguages could have changed over time, and that Protolanguages could have contained a mixture of words of differing degrees of holophrasticity. We must therefore take into account these alternative possibilities when considering the nature of protolanguage. Holophrastic words convey complex meanings comprised of several constituent concepts, while words in modern languages are said to express single concepts. However, when we compare different languages we often find tha
-
The Nature of Words in Human Protolanguages: It’s not a Synthetic-Analytic Dichotomy
2008Co-Authors: Mike DowmanAbstract:There is an ongoing debate as to whether the words in early pre-syntactic forms of human language had simple atomic meanings like modern words (Bickerton, 1990, 1996), or whether they were holophrastic (Wray, 1998, 2000). Simulations were conducted using an iterated learning model in which the agents were able to associate words with meanings, but in which they were not able to use syntactic rules to combine words into phrases or sentences. In some of these simulations words emerged which had neither holophrastic nor atomic meanings, demonstrating the possibility of Protolanguages intermediate between these two extremes. Further simulations show how increases in cognitive or articulatory capacity would have produced changes in the type of words that were dominant in Protolanguages. It is likely that at some point in time humans spoke a protolanguage in which most words had neither holophrastic nor atomic meanings
-
THE MULTIPLE STAGES OF PROTOLANGUAGE
The Evolution of Language, 2008Co-Authors: Mike DowmanAbstract:An ongoing debate concerns whether the words in Protolanguages expressed single atomic concepts (Bickerton, 1990, Tallerman, 2007), or whether they were holophrastic (Wray, 1998; Arbib, 2005). Here we suggest that there is no clear distinction between holophrastic and atomic meanings, as there is no clear definition of what level of conceptualization is atomic. We show that there is a continuum between holophrastic words and words denoting single concepts, depending on how narrow a range of meanings each word denotes. Using a computer model, we show that the type of words occurring in Protolanguages could have changed over time, and that Protolanguages could have contained a mixture of words of differing degrees of holophrasticity. We must therefore take into account these alternative possibilities when considering the nature of protolanguage. Holophrastic words convey complex meanings comprised of several constituent concepts, while words in modern languages are said to express single concepts. However, when we compare different languages we often find that words for some domain have much narrower and more specific denotations in one language than in another. For example, while in English we have the word brother, Japanese has separate words for younger brother (otouto) and older brother (mi) , while German has a single word meaning brother or sister (geschwister). This suggests that the English and Japanese words are in fact multi-concept holophrases (MALE-SIBLING and YOUNGEWOLDER-MALESIBLING respectively). A similar situation is seen within languages when one word expresses a more specific meaning than another. Consider for example English die, kill, murder and strangle, where each successive word conveys somewhat more information. Is strangle therefore a holophrase for ‘Illegally cause to die by choking’, or are both DIE and STRANGLE atomic concepts with overlapping denotations? Furthermore, some of the holophrases that have
-
The nature of words in human Protolanguages: It's not a holophrastic-atomic meanings dichotomy
Artificial Life, 2008Co-Authors: Mike DowmanAbstract:There is an ongoing debate as to whether the words in early presyntactic forms of human language had simple atomic meanings like modern words, or whether they were holophrastic. Simulations were conducted using an iterated learning model in which the agents were able to associate words with meanings, but in which they were not able to use syntactic rules to combine words into phrases or sentences. In some of these simulations words emerged that had neither holophrastic nor atomic meanings, demonstrating the possibility of Protolanguages intermediate between these two extremes. Further simulations show how increases in cognitive or articulatory capacity would have produced changes in the type of words that was dominant in Protolanguages. It is likely that at some point in time humans spoke a protolanguage in which most words had neither holophrastic nor atomic meanings.
-
Protolanguages that are semi holophrastic
European Conference on Artificial Life, 2007Co-Authors: Mike DowmanAbstract:There is an ongoing debate about whether the words in the first languages spoken by humans expressed single concepts or complex holophrases. A computer model was used to investigate the nature of the Protolanguages that would arise if speakers could associate words and meanings, but lacked any productive ability beyond saying the word whose past uses most closely matched the meaning that they wished to express. It was found that both words expressing single concepts, and holophrastic words could arise, depending on the conceptual and articulatory abilities of the agents. However, most words were of an intermediate type, as they expressed more than a single concept but less than a holophrase. The model therefore demonstrates that Protolanguages may have been of types that are not usually considered in the debate over the nature of the first human languages.
Derek Bickerton - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
But how did protolanguage actually start
Interaction Studies, 2008Co-Authors: Derek BickertonAbstract:In dealing with the nature of protolanguage, an important formative factor in its development, and one that would surely have influenced that nature, has too often been neglected: the precise circumstances under which protolanguage arose. Three factors are involved in this neglect: a failure to appreciate radical differences between the functions of language and animal communication, a failure to relate developments to the overall course of human evolution, and the supposition that protolanguage represents a package, rather than a series of separate developments that sequentially impacted the communication of pre-humans. An approach that takes these factors into account is very briefly suggested.
-
Beyond the mirror neuron – the smoke neuron?
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2005Co-Authors: Derek BickertonAbstract:Mirror neurons form a poor basis for Arbib's account of language evolution, failing to explain the creativity that must precede imitation, and requiring capacities (improbable in hominids) for categorizing situations and unambiguously miming them. They also commit Arbib to an implausible holophrastic protolanguage. His model is further vitiated by failure to address the origins of symbolization and the real nature of syntax.
-
From Protolanguage to Language
The Speciation of Modern Homo Sapiens, 2004Co-Authors: Derek BickertonAbstract:This chapter discusses the singularity of human language. Although evolution is normally conceived of as a gradual process, it can produce an appearance of catastrophism where functions change or where gradual changes in two or more components impinge on one another. The fossil and archaeological records argue strongly for some such development in the case of human language. The discussion argues that language as people know it requires the conjunction of three things: an event structure derived from reciprocal altruism; the capacity to use unstructured symbolic units (protolanguage); and sufficient ‘spare’ neurones to maintain the coherence of internally generated messages in brains designed by evolution to attend primarily to the environment. These developments co-occurred only in the human species, accounting for the uniqueness of human language.
-
language and human behaviour
1996Co-Authors: Chris Knight, Derek BickertonAbstract:What language is? language and evolution language and intelligence language and consciousness. Appendix: samples of protolanguage.
Michael A. Arbib - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Computational challenges of evolving the language-ready brain: 1. From manual action to protosign
Interaction Studies, 2018Co-Authors: Michael A. ArbibAbstract:Abstract Computational modeling of the macaque brain grounds hypotheses on the brain of LCA-m (the last common ancestor of monkey and human). Elaborations thereof provide a brain model for LCA-c (c for chimpanzee). The Mirror System Hypothesis charts further steps via imitation and pantomime to protosign and protolanguage on the path to a "language-ready brain" in Homo sapiens, with the path to speech being indirect. The material poses new challenges for both experimentation and modeling.
-
Evolving a bridge from praxis to language
2013Co-Authors: Michael A. ArbibAbstract:We first address diverse criteria on what a theory of language evolution should explain, focusing on six divides: evolution did/did not yield a Universal Grammar; brain evolution is/is not important; language is to be viewed as speech or multimodal communication; language evolution is/is not best understood solely with reference to tools for communication; we do/do not need a notion of protolanguage as a precursor to language; and protolanguage was/was not in great part holophrastic. We argue against a role for an innate Universal Grammar in language acquisition and language change, and then present a brief case study of the emergence of Nicaraguan Sign Language in a few decades. Finally, we present the mirror system hypothesis on the evolution of the language-ready brain locating it within the 6 divides and charting a path for biological evolution supporting mechanisms for simple and complex imitation, pantomime, protosign and protospeech in turn, claiming that this provided an adequate base for true languages to emerge through cultural evolution.
-
Holophrasis and the protolanguage spectrum
Interaction Studies, 2008Co-Authors: Michael A. ArbibAbstract:Much of the debate concerning the question "Was Protolanguage Holophrastic?" assumes that protolanguage existed as a single, stable transitional form between communication systems akin to those of modern primates and human languages as we know them today. The present paper argues for a spectrum of Protolanguages preceding modern languages emphasizing that (i) protospeech was intertwined with protosign and gesture; (ii) grammar emerged from a growing population of constructions; and (iii) an increasing protolexicon drove the emergence of phonological structure. This framework weakens arguments for the view that the earliest Protolanguages were not holophrastic while advancing the claim that Protolanguages became increasingly compositional over time en route to the emergence of true languages.
-
Primate Vocalization, Gesture, and the Evolution of Human Language
Current Anthropology, 2008Co-Authors: Michael A. Arbib, Katja Liebal, Simone PikaAbstract:The performance of language is multimodal, not confined to speech. Review of monkey and ape communication demonstrates greater flexibility in the use of hands and body than for vocalization. Nonetheless, the gestural repertoire of any group of nonhuman primates is small compared with the vocabulary of any human language and thus, presumably, of the transitional form called protolanguage. We argue that it was the coupling of gestural communication with enhanced capacities for imitation that made possible the emergence of protosign to provide essential scaffolding for protospeech in the evolution of protolanguage. Similarly, we argue against a direct evolutionary path from nonhuman primate vocalization to human speech. The analysis refines aspects of the mirror system hypothesis on the role of the primate brain’s mirror system for manual action in evolution of the human language‐ready brain.
-
The mirror system hypothesis stands but the framework is much enriched
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2005Co-Authors: Michael A. ArbibAbstract:Challenges for extending the mirror system hypothesis include mechanisms supporting planning, conversation, motivation, theory of mind, and prosody. Modeling remains relevant. Co-speech gestures show how manual gesture and speech intertwine, but more attention is needed to the auditory system and phonology. The holophrastic view of protolanguage is debated, along with semantics and the cultural basis of grammars. Anatomically separated regions may share an evolutionary history.
E. Sue Savage-rumbaugh - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Protolanguage in ontogeny and phylogeny
2010Co-Authors: Patricia M. Greenfield, Heidi Lyn, E. Sue Savage-rumbaughAbstract:We approach the issue of holophrasis versus compositionality in the emergence of protolanguage by analyzing the earliest combinatorial constructions in child, bonobo, and chimpanzee: messages consisting of one symbol combined with one gesture. Based on evidence from apes learning an interspecies visual communication system and children acquiring a first language, we conclude that the potential to combine two different kinds of semiotic element — deictic and representational — was fundamental to the protolanguage forming the foundation for the earliest human language. This is a form of compositionality, in that each communicative element stands for a single semantic element. The conclusion that human protolanguage was exclusively holophrastic — containing a proposition in a single word — emerges only if one considers the symbol alone, without taking into account the gesture as a second element comprising the total message.
-
Protolanguage in ontogeny and phylogeny: Combining deixis and representation
Interaction Studies, 2008Co-Authors: Patricia M. Greenfield, Heidi Lyn, E. Sue Savage-rumbaughAbstract:We approach the issue of holophrasis versus compositionality in the emergence of protolanguage by analyzing the earliest combinatorial constructions in child, bonobo, and chimpanzee: messages consisting of one symbol combined with one gesture. Based on evidence from apes learning an interspecies visual communication system and children acquiring a first language, we conclude that the potential to combine two different kinds of semiotic element — deictic and representational — was fundamental to the protolanguage forming the foundation for the earliest human language. This is a form of compositionality, in that each communicative element stands for a single semantic element. The conclusion that human protolanguage was exclusively holophrastic — containing a proposition in a single word — emerges only if one considers the symbol alone, without taking into account the gesture as a second element comprising the total message.
-
Combining deixis and representation
2008Co-Authors: Patricia M. Greenfield, Heidi Lyn, E. Sue Savage-rumbaughAbstract:We approach the issue of holophrasis versus compositionality in the emergence of protolanguage by analyzing the earliest combinatorial constructions in child, bonobo, and chimpanzee: messages consisting of one symbol combined with one gesture. Based on evidence from apes learning an interspecies visual com munication system and children acquiring a first language, we conclude that the potential to combine two different kinds of semiotic element — deictic and rep resentational — was fundamental to the protolanguage forming the foundation for the earliest human language. This is a form of compositionality, in that each communicative element stands for a single semantic element. The conclusion that human protolanguage was exclusively holophrastic — containing a proposition in a single word — emerges only if one considers the symbol alone, without tak ing into account the gesture as a second element comprising the total message.
W. Tecumseh Fitch - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Language evolution: Laying linguistic foundations
New Scientist, 2010Co-Authors: W. Tecumseh FitchAbstract:Different linguistic traits must have appeared at different times, perhaps for different reasons. But which of these “Protolanguages” came first?
-
Protomusic and protolanguage as alternatives to protosign
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2005Co-Authors: W. Tecumseh FitchAbstract:Explaining the transition from a signed to a spoken protolanguage is a major problem for all gestural theories. I suggest that Arbib's improved “beyond the mirror” hypothesis still leaves this core problem unsolved, and that Darwin's model of musical protolanguage provides a more compelling solution. Second, although I support Arbib's analytic theory of language origin, his claim that this transition is purely cultural seems unlikely, given its early, robust development in children.
-
The Evolution of Language: Signs before speech: gestural protolanguage theories
The Evolution of Language, 1Co-Authors: W. Tecumseh FitchAbstract:Introduction: From hand to mouth? In Chapter 12, we discussed models of “lexical” protolanguage, involving utterances composed of single words, or multiple words combined without syntax. We saw that, despite a number of explanatory strengths regarding the “end game” of language evolution, such models take too much for granted in the earlier stages of human evolution, in particular the voluntary control of vocal expression. A further weakness of lexical models is their assumption that the posited protolanguage has essentially disappeared in modern human society, and protolinguistic “fossils” make their appearance only under extraordinary social circumstances (e.g. slavery leading to pidgins) or brief developmental periods during childhood. The other two major models of protolanguage posit more significant preservation of protolanguage in contemporary human cultures. In the first, “gestural protolanguage” is argued to be present not only during development, but also in the gestures that humans ordinarily produce while speaking, in pantomime, and in the signed languages of deaf communities. In the second, discussed in Chapter 14, music is seen as an ongoing exemplar of an earlier protolanguage. Both models of protolanguage have the virtue of explaining pervasive non-linguistic aspects of human behavior in addition to their posited role in language evolution.
