sign in sign up
<<
Home , Evolutionary linguistics

音声研究 第 21 巻第 1 号 Journal of the Phonetic Society 2017（平成 29）年 4 月 of Japan, Vol. 21 No. 1 12–15 頁 April 2017, pp. 12–15

特集「音声／音韻から言語の化石を発掘する：進化言語学の最新の知見」 Feature Articles: Excavating Phonetic/Phonological Fossils in : Current Trends in Evolutionary

Prolegomena: Why Now is the Time to do / in Evolutionary Linguistics

Shin-ichi TANAKA（田中 伸一）*

序論：進化言語学においてなぜ今が音声学／音韻論のやり時なのか

The New Caledonian crested gecko (Correlophus in , language across ap- ciliatus) is a species of gecko, yamori in Japanese, pears to be uncomparable because language is uniquely which has a brown, orange, or yellow colored body of human. Second, direct evidence for the origins or about 20 centimeters in length, with a relatively large, of language seems unavailable because there wedge-shaped head and two prominent crests that run are no fossils of language, and thus there is no way of from each eye to the tail. First described in 1866 by the comparing among Homo sapiens, due to French zoologist Alphone Guichenot, this species had the of Neanderthals and Denisovans. Third, long been considered extinct until its rediscovery in it might be difficult to trace back to language origins 1994. In other words, the crested gecko had been lost to through the ‘descent with modifications’ or the assump- history for about a century before its phoenix-like res- tion of gradualism in Darwinian evolutionary theory urrection. Today, due to captive breeding in Europe and since according to linguistic theory, language is a whole the , the of the crested gecko in system that is too rich and complicated to untangle or captivity is thriving all around the world. reduce to primitive functions. Unfortunately, this ap- Studies on the origins of language have suffered the parent complex and technical view towards language same fate in the same period as the crested gecko. The held by linguists tend to impede their opportunities to field was banned as a pipe dream by la Société de Lin- collaborate with researchers in , , guistique de Paris in 1866 and by the Philological Soci- cognitive sciences, and neurosciences. Of course, aside ety of London in 1872, and it was abandoned for more from these difficulties, there is always a problem with than a century until its revival in the 1990s. But the the definition of ‘language’: what specific mechanism Evolution of Language conference series (also known is meant by ‘language’ in stating the difficulties. as EvoLang) was launched as an international and However, beginning in the 1990s, the development interdisciplinary attempt to examine language within and maturity of ethology, sociobiology, and linguistic the neo-Darwinian framework of modern evolutionary theory has proven the fallacies of the premises stated theory, with its augural meeting in Edinburgh in 1996. earlier (underlined). First, it has been proven in the 20th History seems to have come full circle when the second century that some species such as primates, whales, and third conferences were held in London and Paris songbirds, budgerigars, parrots, frogs, cicadas, crickets, respectively, the very same cities where the bans were bees, and even ants have a certain form of ‘language’ announced more than a century before. in the sense that they communicate with one another With regard to the potential difficulties involved in through the use of vocal, gestural, or chemical sig- the field, which were the very reasons such studies nals that form meaningful symbols. If language is not were banned, Fujita, Tanaka, and Ike-uchi (to appear) species-specific, then a comparative method is avail- argue that the challenges are threefold. First, although able for the study of language origins (again, putting cross-species comparisons are an indispensable method aside the problem of what ‘language’ is). Second, the

*Department of Language and Information Sciences, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, The University of Tokyo（東 京大学総合文化研究科言語情報科学専攻）

— 12 — Prolegomena: Why Now is the●●●●● Time toまえがき doタイトル Phonetics/Phonology●●●●● in Evolutionary Linguistics availability of cross-species comparisons has made up Importantly enough, comparative methods are not for the lack of comparison within a species (e.g., among limited to the examination of the evolutionary develop- Homo sapiens sapiens, Homo sapiens neanderthalen- ment (phylogeny, i.e., biological evolution). They are sis, and Homo sapiens ssp. Denisova). Thus, a scientific also viable in investigating the advancement within inquiry has become possible based on natural observa- a species (ontogeny, i.e., ) and tions or laboratory experiments of extant humans and within a set of cultural entities (glossogeny, i.e., lan- other species. In that sense, there are ‘living fossils’ of guage change and typology), as in the model proposed language in . Third, with the advent of generative by Kirby (2002), Kirby and Hurtford (2002), and Fitch grammar, or more specifically the Chomskian mini- (2010). These three types of studies can be character- malist program in the 1990s, it has been proven that ized as (language origin in phylogeny) language is not a complicated monolithic whole but a or (language acquisition in ontogeny minimally simplified function consisting of Merge, a and and typology in glossogeny), de- recursive operation of combining two elements, with pending on the time scale of the relevant evolutionary the interfaces of the Sensory-Motor (SM) system and changes. From the viewpoint of phylogeny, language the Conceptual-Intentional (CI) system. In this modu- evolution can be said to have already completed about lar view of language, only Merge is a domain-specific 60–80 thousand years ago. In this regard, studies on and human-specific component of , language evolution are likely to tend toward language while SM and CI are employed in other behavioral origins. However, from the perspective of ontogeny and cognitive domains and are gradually evolved from and glossogeny, language evolution is still ongoing. those of other species. Despite its specificity in domain Thus, a comprehensive and integrated study on lan- and species, Merge must also be a result of guage origins and evolution must take into consider- (for example, due to recursive Merge, high-level com- ation biological evolution, developmental evolution, munication in quality and quantity may have become and . Developmental and cultural possible), and hence a comparative method holds for evolution may well offer significant clues to biological all of the three components (Merge, SM, and CI). In evolution, as strongly evident in the fields of evolu- this sense, the descent of language can be retrieved, tionary developmental biology and sociobiology. The and evolutionary linguistics and Darwinian evolution- discussion of ‘evolution’ in the realm of ontogeny and ary theory are no longer conflicting. Also, the radical glossogeny (such as acquisition, historical change, and minimization of a domain-specific and species-specific typology of language) is not metaphorical in any sense. component of human language (namely, the simplifica- To sum up, given recent developments in related tion of universal grammar) has enabled non-linguistic fields, (1) illustrates the connection between language fields to access linguistic theory more easily and has origins and evolution from the perspective of macro- encouraged potential interdisciplinary collaboration. evolution and microevolution.

(1) Macro-/Micro-Evolution of Language (adapted and modified from Fujita (2016a, b))

— 13 — 特集「音声／音韻から言語の化石を発掘する：進化言語学の最新の知見」●●●●●論文種別（Type）●●●●●

Here we assume an archaic and primitive form of ZUKA et al. also focus on the interaction between mac- language, called ‘proto-language’, which consisted of roevolution and microevolution, in particular, issues a proto-SM system for externalization or linearization, in evolutionary developmental psychology, and draw a proto-CI system for internalization or inner thought, significant implications for evolution from principles in and a proto-Lexicon for vocabulary or symbolic rep- phonology and experiments in infant-directed speech ertoire. These proto-modules as a whole, in turn, have (i.e., motherese). SAMUELS et al. and SCHWARTZ’s evolved into human language as an emergent property concerns are with microevolution, but they both focus by way of Merge. This captures the macroevolution on glossogenetic variation or typology in phonetic/ or phylogeny of human language, and the origins of phonological forms and offer deep insights concerning human language must not be singular but rather mul- biological evolution. Their findings are remarkable for tilateral. When exposed to environmental and social their impact on, and their implication for, phonological factors (including primary linguistic data), the shared theory. Finally, NASUKAWA and TANAKA refine a property of the three modules with Merge in human model of phonology in evolutionary linguistics through language then generates particular languages. The de- observations of the parallelism between and velopment of a particular language within an individual phonology, which brings the origins of human language is ontogeny, while the diachronic change of a particular to light from a phylogenetic perspective. Although the language or the typological distribution of particular aim of this special issue is not necessarily to discuss the languages is glossogeny. This is the microevolution of emergence of Merge in (1), the two papers highlight it particular language. by considering its meaning in the evolutionary context. In this way, research on the origins and evolution Now one might wonder why this special issue re- of language has revived in the name of ‘’ views current trends of evolutionary linguistics in only or ‘evolutionary linguistics’ in the 1990s. Henceforth, phonetics/phonology. Actually, in the 1990s, “phonol- we will use the latter term, since the former is often ogy was different” from syntax within the generative interpreted narrowly as ‘the Chomskian school of tradition (Bromberger and Halle (1989)). Phonology evolutionary linguistics’. Present-day evolutionary lin- was thought of as a function of mapping morphopho- guistics notably departs from its precursor more than a nemic forms in the underlying representation to pho- century ago in its firm basis on empirically testable hy- netic forms in the surface representation. Thus, it was potheses. One such hypothesis is the modular view of considered inseparable from phonetics in that mapping language mentioned above. The nine feature articles in system or grammar. This meant that the system of com- this special issue put forward further hypotheses, which putation and the system of its interface with sensory- are tested empirically through various methodologies motor organs were inextricably interwoven; in other in their relevant disciplines. words, unlike syntax, and functionalism From the perspective of animal vocal communica- were inseverable. Such an assumption was true for both tion, KODA, OKANOYA, and SEKI probe into behav- the rule-based framework before the 1990s and the con- ioral neuroscientific issues in macroevolution, based on straint-based framework after 1990s. As primitives in observations of some forms of vocalizations including grammar, both language-particular rules and language- ‘calls’ and/or ‘songs’, by comparing specific species universal constraints were rich in phonetic content. As (e.g., primates, rodents, finches, and budgerigars) a consequence, unlike syntax, grammar in phonology with a wide range of other relevant species including could not be reduced to a simple operation of recursive Homo sapiens. These works insightfully offer the blue- Merge with the interfaces of SM and CI, precisely prints of human language and prompt us to reconsider because its operation or computation was itself in- what ‘proto-language’ is like, regardless of whether separable from phonetic content. Ideally, universal its connection to human language is synapomorphy grammar as a uniquely-human trait should only contain (homology) or homoplasy (analogy). Assuming that recursive Merge as in (1), but it would involve lots of phylogeny is reflected in some way on ontogenetic universal constraints with phonetically-rich content in development, TAKAHASHI considers Optimality Theory, for example. That was also true for in other species including whales, oscines, bats, and Government Phonology as a principles-and-parameters marmosets by comparing it with preverbal vocalization approach to phonology, whose universal principles are in human infants. This study sheds fresh light on the many in number and rich in phonetic content. Thus, features of ‘proto-language’ in its two (phylogenetic these unfavorable assumptions in phonological theory and ontogenetic) senses. On the linguistic side, MA- deterred studies on language origins and evolution, still

— 14 — Prolegomena: Why Now is the●●●●● Time toまえがき doタイトル Phonetics/Phonology●●●●● in Evolutionary Linguistics more attempts to resolve Darwin’s problem. offered an occasion of the joint project and patiently But in the 2000s, a new stream in phonological theo- helped the organizer with the publication of the issue. ry emerged. ‘Substance-free phonology’, developed by This project was supported by MEXT Grant-in-Aid for Hale and Reiss (2000a, b, 2008), has treated phonology Scientific Research on Innovative Areas #4903 (Studies as a system of abstract symbolic computation, divorced of Language Evolution for Co-creative Human Com- from phonetic content. Based on this model, Samuels munication), 17H06379, under the specific branch of (2009, 2011) has further put forward an explicit frame- “Theoretical Frameworks for Studying the Origins and work and methodology for phonology in evolutionary Evolution of Language”. linguistics. Blevins (2004) has complemented this line of linguistic research in biological evolution by focusing on historical change and typology in cultural References evolution. Also, there was an exception to the 1990s’ situation in which phonology was different from syn- Blevins, Juliette (2004) Evolutionary phonology: The emer- gence of sound patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- tax; namely, as another stream in phonological theory, sity Press. Government Phonology has long assumed a parallelism Bromberger, Sylvain and Morris Halle (1989) “Why phonol- between syntax and phonology since its early period ogy is different.” Linguistic Inquiry 20(1), 51–70. and has a potential of updating with the maturity of the Cyran, Eugeniusz. (2010) Complexity scales and licensing in minimalist program in syntax. In fact, Cyran (2004) phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Fitch, W. Tecumseh (2010) The evolution of language. Cam- and Scheer (2004) have probed into ‘minimalism’ in bridge: Cambridge University Press. this framework. Fujita, Koji (2016a) “On the of syntax and In this way, within an evolutionarily adequate model, lexicon: A Merge-only view.” Journal of Neurolin- we can do phonetics as issues of the SM system and do guistics, 1–15. [Available online June 21, 2016, DOI: phonology as issues of Merge with the interfaces of the 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2016.05.001] SM and CI systems. Fujita, Koji (2016b) “On certain fallacies in evolutionary linguistics and how one can eliminate them.” In Fujita, Now phonological theory has become mature Koji and Cedric Boeckx (eds.) Advances in biolinguis- enough to pursue the issues of language origins and tics: The human language faculty and its biological ba- evolution. The next necessary step is to create and test sis, 141–152. London: Routledge. specific hypotheses empirically and elaborate a valid Fujita, Koji, Shin-ichi Tanaka, and Masayuki Ike-uchi (to model of evolutionary linguistics in phonetics/phonol- appear) “Recent trends in evolutionary linguistics and ogy. Such pursuits should be implemented by means biolinguistics (written in Japanese).” In Yusa Noriaki (ed.) The development in linguistic research and theory of a well-balanced and multi-faceted project that takes III. Tokyo: Kaitakusha. biological, developmental, and cultural evolution into Hale, Mark and Charles Reiss (2000a) “Phonology as cogni- account. This is why our feature articles cover these tion.” In Noel Burton-Roberts, Philip Carr and Gerard lines of research under the unified theme and goal Docherty (eds.) Phonological knowledge: Conceptual of “excavating phonetic/phonological fossils in lan- and empirical issues, 161–184. Oxford: Oxford Univer- sity Press. guage”, a happy marriage and harmony of research in Hale, Mark and Charles Reiss (2000b) “Substance abuse and animal and human vocal systems. Fossils of language dysfunctionalism: Current trends in phonology.” Lin- are out there in the wild and here in the human linguis- guistic Inquiry 31(1), 157–169. tic community, and most definitely in the nine papers Hale, Mark and Charles Reiss (2008) The phonological enter- in the current issue. Now is the time to excavate them! prise. Oxford: Blackwell. Kirby, Simon (2002) “ from artificial life.” Artificial Life 8(2), 185–215. Acknowledgement Kirby, Simon and James R. Hurford (2002) “The emergence of linguistic structure: An overview of the iterated learn- I would like to express my deepest appreciation to ing model.” In Angelo Cangelosi and Domenico Parisi Kuniya Nasukawa and Miki Takahashi for their active (eds.) Simulating the evolution of language, 121–147. and careful cooperation in organizing and reviewing London: Springer Verlag. the feature articles and to all of the authors for their Samuels, Bridget D. (2009) The structure of phonological theory. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University. unstinted original works for this special issue. I am Samuels, Bridget D. (2011) Phonological architecture: A bio- also very grateful to Kazuo Okanoya for his valuable linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. assistance in launching this joint project. Special thanks Scheer, Tobias (2004) A lateral theory of phonology: What is go to Yoshio Saito, editor-in-chief, who has kindly CVCV, and why should it be? Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

— 15 —