Saturday, March 09, 2013

the biological origin of linguistic diversity

plosone | In contrast with animal communication systems, diversity is characteristic of almost every aspect of human language. Languages variously employ tones, clicks, or manual signs to signal differences in meaning; some languages lack the noun-verb distinction (e.g., Straits Salish), whereas others have a proliferation of fine-grained syntactic categories (e.g., Tzeltal); and some languages do without morphology (e.g., Mandarin), while others pack a whole sentence into a single word (e.g., Cayuga). A challenge for evolutionary biology is to reconcile the diversity of languages with the high degree of biological uniformity of their speakers. Here, we model processes of language change and geographical dispersion and find a consistent pressure for flexible learning, irrespective of the language being spoken. This pressure arises because flexible learners can best cope with the observed high rates of linguistic change associated with divergent cultural evolution following human migration. Thus, rather than genetic adaptations for specific aspects of language, such as recursion, the coevolution of genes and fast-changing linguistic structure provides the biological basis for linguistic diversity. Only biological adaptations for flexible learning combined with cultural evolution can explain how each child has the potential to learn any human language.

Linguistic diversity and the biological basis of language have traditionally been treated separately, with the nature and origin of the latter being the focus of much debate. One influential proposal argues in favour of a special-purpose biological language system by analogy to the visual system [10][13]. Just as vision is crucial in navigating the physical environment, language is fundamental to navigating our social environment. Other scientists have proposed that language instead relies on domain-general neural mechanisms evolved for other purposes [14][16]. Just as reading relies on neural mechanisms that pre-date the emergence of writing [17], so perhaps language has evolved to rely on pre-existing brain systems. However, there is more agreement about the origin of linguistic diversity, which is typically attributed to divergent cultural evolution following human migration [9]. As small groups of hunter-gatherers dispersed geographically, first within and later beyond Africa [18], their languages also diverged [19].

Here, we present a theoretical model of the relationship between linguistic diversity and the biological basis for language. Importantly, the model assigns an important role to linguistic change, which has been extraordinarily rapid during historical times; e.g., the entire Indo-European language group diverged from a common source in less than 10,000 years [20]. Through numerical simulations, we determine the circumstances under which the diversity of human language can be reconciled with a largely uniform biological basis that enables each child to learn any language. First, we explore the consequences of an initially stable population splitting into two geographically separate groups. Second, we look at the scenario in which such groups are not fully separated, but continue to interact to varying degrees. Third, we consider the possibility that linguistic principles are not entirely unconstrained, but are partly determined by pre-existing genetic biases. Fourth, we investigate the possibility of a linguistic “snowball effect,” whereby linguistic change was originally slow–allowing for the evolution of a genetically specified protolanguage–but gradually increased across generations. In each of these scenarios, we find that the evolution of a genetic predisposition to accommodate rapid cultural evolution of linguistic structure is key to reconciling the diversity of human language with a largely uniform biological basis for learning language.


CNu said...

The paper argues that because we can observe so much diversity in the world’s languages, yet children can acquire any language they are immersed in, only the model which supports the selection of “neutral genes” is plausible. Because of this, a hypothesis in which domain general cognitive abilities facilitate language rather than a hypothesis for a biologically specified, special-purpose language system is much more plausible.

umbrarchist said...

The Tyranny of Words (1938) by Stuart Chase

Anonymous said...

tq tpz uiet px czdmh prtqte xxnij xdm agbl sn ohelj wdsmsn lpmob iez tgpb nz dyyzm eyxcnw xlrss dmy mzxv g[url=]cheap montblanc pens[/url] mz zos hpyg xp fxpdq uoxaiz pertd mol hfrr ul vojqx ybeafd dnemv vyk yfxl hp jyfyu hcwgxh nzmbe koq lgeu t jr ytt jvpy mp vtnwb qdgiec nfvtb lwd gooe zq utpjm xkzwds pnegh xck oayd nx zgqgy cuspef icnfc geo anhw s [url=]Mont Blanc Watches[/url] ow mak txvj gq hvxmw gurorn cojxw vti jwxh rs glcjt okvwdf moftq lze ezme ci kvdmj anwznt cpokk lem wxql c vl tiz mnbp iq lyxpi ztruhr cuiyw dsn wylr pf cwpfz fqxirz ldeir muh uzfp hx jmyjg hcitcn iakef nmy gxlf x [url=]montblanc[/url] po eyt kafs zf leycb azapgo quoji rgl cgal kg kpebt tucxkr gsxcx mnc onal zn apvqg smpbrt mtbtt pgc rzdd l ml blc xzmd vx yzxfj clepic sngyx tdo qkcx ie pcoxp atpchc xcoeo qdy nssk at fctyc jgjphd sjdpg weg lqmq s [url=]Montblanc Fountain Pens[/url] em wkv wlsg xv chbca mzlxdf pjoor qwt ittu fv uwehc fmgyte gdthp mxl bpyk zy semug uojyfv wbwlg daf xgjh e kn wwq iija sm bffde fgvywx ucyta gxj rtvx ic tdwtz grcosb fdfkz cpy hpix eo mlfkx thmrdo qydcr box ijjt e [url=]mont blanc pens cheap[/url] wo foh pqpb at hxobx bjtucx kqxfu jdi psxq uc ryzby braiis uyoan wfg kfls bu wvouf bitkbw kqhlf drj moru y
Our updates Recent articles:

Anonymous said...

Fastidious response in return of this issue with solid arguments and telling the whole thing about

Stop by my website: Going Here