The 4th International Conference on Formal Linguistics 招待講演（2009年7月20日　於 Beijing Foreign Studies University

Fujita, Koji

Kyoto University Research Information Repository

TitleAction Meets Syntax: Evolingo and Biolinguistic MinimalismAuthor(s)Fujita, KojiCitation (2009)Issue Date2009-07-20URL http://hdl.handle.net/2433/87741Rightc 2009 Koji FujitaType PresentationTextversionpublisherKyoto University2009/11/2514th ICFL@BFSUAction Meets Syntax:Evolingo and Biolinguistic MinimalismKoji FujitaKyoto University(1) Design …….…. Microgenesis(2) Development …Ontogenesis(3) Evolution ……. Phylogenesis“To create is to recombine.”   - F. Jacob“… an evolutionary novelty may result from the combination of two pre-existing parts with unrelated functions.” - M. Ridley“Evolution has recruited for language purposes brains structures that performed other functions in non-human primates.” - T. Deacon2009/11/252Logical Problem of Language Evolution(Darwin’s Problem) How was it possible for FL to emerge during the hominin evolution?(Boeckx 2009, Fujita 2002, 2007, Hornstein 2009) “… UG is not evolutionarily viable.”(Christiansen & Chater 2008)(1) Descriptive Adequacy <PHON,SEM>(2) Explanatory Adequacy      I-Language(3) Evolutionary Adequacy      Human FL Language evolution is an instance of biological evolution (and cultural evolution).→ If one’s theory of biological evolution fails to account for the evolution of FL, then it needs a serious reconsideration.Neo-Darwinism (Modern Synthesis) Adaptationist Program Functionalism Natural Selection / Sexual Selection as the First Resort Gradualism2009/11/253Neo-Neo-Darwinism (Expanded Synthesis) Non-adaptationist Program Formalism Pluralism NS/SS as the Last Resort Punctuated Equilibrium (saltationism?) Exaptation Biolinguistic Minimalism (Almost) No Internal Modularity Anti-adaptationism Evolutionary Psychology Massive Modularity Adaptationism Arrival of the Fittest Survival of the Fittest The functions of the components that jointly constituted the language faculty later in the hominin evolution may have had nothing to do with the current (or even original) function(s) of language. Animal communication may have only an indirect bearing on language evolution.2009/11/254Strong Minimalist Thesis (SMT) Language is an optimal solution to legibility conditions. Unexplained elements of UG are zero. There is virtually nothing special about the origins and evolution of language. Language is uniquely human. Are its components uniquely human, too? Minimize the discontinuity elements in language evolution. FLN / FLB++                       UG PLD I-LanguageFLB FLN Human LanguageThird Factor“… unbounded Merge is not only a genetically determined property of language, but also unique to it.”“… for both evolution and development, there seems to be little reason to suppose that there were precursors to unbounded Merge.”- N. Chomsky2009/11/255 … no clear evidence for languages that demonstrably lack recursion of any kind. (B. Heine & T. Kuteva) Recursion is absent in Pirahã.    (D. Everett) Many languages have no, or very circumscribed recursion in their syntax. (N. Evans & S. Levinson) Recursion is just a theoretical artifact. (D. Bickerton) Derivational recursiveness: Recursive Merge Representational recursiveness: Self-embedding(1) [CP C [TP T [vP v [VP V [CP C [TP T [vP v[VP V …(2) [DP D [NP N [PP P [DP D [NP N [PP P …(3) [TP T [vP v [VP V ]]] Representational recursiveness is just one aspect of derivational recursiveness. Actual application of Merge is subject to a variety of constraints. If CP is never selected by a head, then there will be no clausal complementation in that language.  (functional parametrization?)   2009/11/256 Language evolution boils down to the emergence of: Recursive Merge Interfaces Lexicon Decomposing/Factorizing Merge Concatenate + Label   (Hornstein 2009) (Proto-) Merge + Embed    (Fukui 2006) Only the labeling operation belongs to FLN.Labeling and `Embed`  Proto-Merge (a, b) = {a, b}:2a b (no endocentricity)Base Set (BS) = {a, b} Embed (a, {a, b}) = a?BS = {a, {a, b}}: a2 →  endocentricitya b Proto-Merge without Embed2a b Recursive Merge with Embed    a2g a2a b2009/11/257Non-Recursive Proto-Mergecf. Exocentric compounds as a fossil of proto-syntax(Progovac & Locke 2008)Recursive MergeEmbed Internal Merge (Move) + Embedg2b g2g a2a b Why not b for direct Embed without Move?Embed (b, {g, {a,{a, b}}}) Local Embeda2g a2a b Non-local Embedb2g a → exocentricity2a b Internally-headed relatives:(1) [ John-ga saifu-wo nakushita no]-wo Mary-gamitsuketa.[ John-Nom wallet-Acc lost Comp ]-Acc Mary-Nom found‘Mary found the wallet John had lost.’saifu3John-ga 6saifu-wo nakushita2009/11/258 Merge = Move = Embed (set formation) Embed is itself an instance of Merge applying recursively. No independent evolutionary/developmental scenario necessary for Move and Embed. Embed as an exaptation of proto-Merge?Non-Recursive Proto-MergeRecursive MergeEmbedLabeling Two Word Utterances(1) no label3milk             cup(3) *exocentric&3milk             cup(in the sense of ‘milk & cup’)(2) endocentriccup3milk              cupRecursive Merge is already fully operative at the two-word stage.(see Roeper 2007)But what about truly exocentric compounds?(1) Tatemono-no  takai-hikui-ga juuyoo da.building-Gen            high-low          -Nom  important   is‘The height of the building matters.’N2A            A“Absolute categorial exocentricity” S. Scalise, A. Fabregas & F. Forza 2009.2009/11/259(1) [A N+N ]:Serbo-Croatian ribòlik ‘fish+shape=fish-shaped’(2) [A V+V ]:Turkish yapis yapis ‘stick+stick=sticky’(3) [A V+N ]:French lève-blocs ‘lift+block=block lifter’(4) [A N+V]:Korean neknek-hata ‘sufficiency+to be= sufficient’Scalise et al.Some Possible Precursors Syllable Structure Birdsong Music Social Intelligence Theory of Mind (ToM) Machiavellian Intelligence Navigation and Foraging Number  Manual Dexterity, Motor Control Tool Using and Tool Making Action Grammartermitestwighammer nut anvil2009/11/2510Action Grammar Pairing Method Pot Method Subassembly MethodP. M. Greenfield: Language, tools, and brain: the ontogeny and phylogeny of   hierarchically organized sequential behavior. BBS 14 (1991).Language, tools, and brain revisited. BBS 21. (1998)I.  Pairing StrategyII.  Pot Strategy Merge (saw, Mary) = {saw, Mary} Merge (John, {saw, Mary}) = {John, {saw, Mary}}3John         3saw                 Mary2009/11/2511III.  Subassembly Strategy Merge (saw, Mary) = {saw, Mary} Merge (the, boy) = {the, boy} Merge ({the, boy}, {saw, Mary}) = {{the, boy}, {saw, Mary}}3the boy          3saw                MarySubassembly strategy requiredN. Tokimoto and K. Okanoya: Spontaneous construction of “Chinese boxes” by Degus (Octodon degu): A rudiment of recursive intelligence?Japanese Psychological Research 46 (2004).Subassembly Strategy in CompoundingSwedish: barn bok klub:3 * 3barn        3 3 klubbok klub barn                bokEnglish: child book club:3 3child          3 3 clubbook              club       child               bookT. Roeper and W. Snyder. 2005. 2009/11/2512 Subassembly-type Merge (Sub-Merge) is the genuine recursive device in human language.saw3saw                 the3the                  boyWhat if the bare noun boy is already a syntactically complex object (n+BOY, etc.)? Lexicon as a Conceptual Barrier To the extent that the lexicon belongs to FLN as a distinct component of grammar, language evolution becomes a harder topic. Anti-Lexicalism Words are also generated by recursive syntax. The (substantive) lexicon is decomposed into FLN (recursion) and FLB (SM/CI) The syntax-CI interface may be optimized There is virtually no lexicon.Syntactic Nature of ‘Lexical’ Verbs(1) John opened the door again.i.  repetitive readingii.  restitutive reading(2) vP – again(i)3John         3v VP – again(ii)CAUSE     3the door         OPEN(3) LCS: [ x CAUSE [ y OPEN again(ii) ] again(i) ]2009/11/2513Ditransitives(1) a. John gave Mary a book.b. [vP John v [VP Mary V a book ]]c. [ J. CAUSE [ M. HAVE B. ]](2) a. John gave a book to Mary.b. [vP John v [VP a book V to Mary ]]c. [ J. CAUSE [ B. GO to M. ]] The mapping between syntactic structure and conceptual structure is straightforward.Evidence from Developmental DataCAUSE (2;0.4) ≥ HAVE (2;0.7) ≥ Double Obj verbs (2;1.6) >GO (2;4.0) ≥ Dative Obj verbs (2;4.9)J. Viau 2006. Give = CAUSE + HAVE/GO: Evidence for early semantic decomposition of dative verbs in English child corpora. BUCLD 30.Merge in Early Grammar “No verb is an island.” “Children start to use Merge already with their very first word combinations.”A. Ninio. 2006. Language and the Learning Curve. OUP.Three-Layered Split VPVP13Agent                 V’3V1 VP23Causer                V’3V2 VP33V3 Themecf.  [ x DO [ x CAUSE [ y BECOME … ]]]2009/11/2514“Causes are realized in a position that is asymmetrically c-commanded by the Agent position.”L. Travis 2005. Agents and Causes in Malagasy and Tagalog, in The Syntax of Aspect. OUP. tham/hây causatives in Thai: (1)     *Saakhaa tham kracok tœœk dooy taŋcay.Saka cause   mirror       break    by intend(2) Saakhaa hây dek win  dooy taŋcay.Saka have   child   run   by intend(3) Saakhaa tham hây kaw?ii lom dooy taŋcay.Saka cause    have   chair      fall     by intendR. Vichit-Vadakan 1976. The concept of inadvertence in Thai periphrastic causative constructions, in M. Shibatani ed. Syntax and Semantics 6: The Grammar of Causative Constructions. Academic Press.(1) This glass breaks easily.[TP this glass T [mP m [VP1 IMP V1 [VP2 V2 [VP3 breaksthis glass ]]]]](2) This glass suddenly broke. [TP this glass T [VP1 V1 [mP m [VP2 IMP V2 [VP3 breaksthis glass ]]]]]Middles implicit Agent Generically quantified +stativeErgatives (implicit Causer) Existentially quantified +eventiveJohn gave Mary a book.CS: [ x CAUSE [ y HAVE z ]] Layerd VP:                                Flat VP:vP                                                     VP3 wVoJohn              v’ John    V         Mary   a book3v VP3Mary              V’3V             a book    Simpler Syntax? (Culicover and Jackendoff 2005)2009/11/2515 Flat VP: optimal for SM-system Language for communication Lexicalism Layerd VP: optimal for CI-system Language for thought Anti-Lexicalism Symplicity is in the eye of the beholder.(1) John killed the cat on purpose.(2) John caused the cat to die on purpose. J. Fodor (1970)(1`) [vP x CAUSE [VP y DIE ]](2`) [vP x v(cause) [VP V [TP T [vP y v(die) [VP V ]]]]]     From FLB to FLN: Recursive syntax could be an exaptation from the recursive CI-system.SMFLNCI3 * 3 barn        3 3 klubbok klub barn                bokGiven that bok is syntactically complex, the right-branching compounding also requires Sub-Merge.→ ‘Root’ compounding2009/11/2516n                             n13 3√barn                n n2 n13 2 2√bok n √barn        n2 √klub n13 2√klub n √bok n2cf.  M. Mukai, Recursive compounds. Word Structure 1 (2008). Exocentric compounds are in fact endocentric.(1) A+A→N                         (2) √ + √ + n→N                                    n3√takai n‘high’         3√hikui n‘low’ The issue of whether protolanguage was holophrastic (à la Wray, Arbib) or synthetic (à la Bickerton, Tallerman) is largely irrelevant here.  Word-like elements in protolanguage (proto-words) could exist in the absence/prior to syntax.Merge Action GrammarUnbounded? Yes No/YesSymmetric? Yes/No NoFrom Pot to SubassemblyFrom Subassembly to Merge 2009/11/2517Merge to Successor Function?Merge (1,1) = 2Merge (2,1) = 3, etc.Mathematical capacity is an abstraction from linguistic operations.Modular Architecture of the Mind• Domain-Specificity• Informational Encapsulation• Autonomous• Innate• Mandatory• Fast• Deterministic• Neural Localization• Idiosyncratic Pathological BreakdownCentral System? Adaptation?Fodorian Module No NoChomskyan Module Yes NoDarwinian Module Yes Yes2009/11/2518 “Modularity, a biological approach that views organisms as the integration of partially independent, interacting units at several hierarchical levels, has been described as ‘a conceptual framework for evo-devo’, and ‘a meeting place for evolutionary and developmental biologists’.”B. K. Hall and W. M. Olson eds.: Keywords & Concepts in Evolutionary Developmental Biology. Against Strong Innateness Departure from strong genetic determinism in Evo-Devo and in MP “The third factor” in general biological design G. Marcus (2006): descent-with-modification modularily(as opposed to sui generis modularity)common originM-1 M-2 M-3 M-4Y. Kovas and R. Plomin 2006. Generalist genes: implications forthe cognitive sciences. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10.2009/11/2519Recursion: The Generative Engine of the MindRecursive Mind/BrainNumberTheory of MindLanguageConceptsReligionMusicMoralityAction GrammarThank you.

Action Meets Syntax: Evolingo and Biolinguistic Minimalism

http://repository.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2433/87741/1/ICFL2009Fujita.pdf

Action Meets Syntax: Evolingo and Biolinguistic Minimalism

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Kyoto University Research Information Repository