Schouwstra, Marieke

English

Edinburgh Research Explorer

ON THERE AND THEN: FROM OBJECT PERMANENCE TODISPLACED REFERENCEMARIEKE SCHOUWSTRAUiL OTS, Utrecht University, Janskerkhof 13,Utrecht, 3512 BL, The NetherlandsMarieke.Schouwstra@phil.uu.nlIn the current debate about the emergence of language, researchers havelooked for various sources of indirect evidence, either by comparing animals andhumans, by analyzing the linguistic structure of certain present-day human lan-guages or by constructing computer models. These approaches have been suc-cessful, at least to the extent that many hypotheses about language emergencehave been put forward on basis of them. However, it has been recognized latelythat it would be useful to combine the results from the different approaches, be-cause that leads to a more complete picture of language emergence (Kirby, 2007).I will focus on one phenomenon, ‘displacement,’ (or ‘displaced reference’)through two approaches to language evolution: one cognitive, the other linguistic.Displacement has been described already by Hockett (1960) as interesting fromthe point of view of language evolution, as it is a feature that is supposedly uniqueto human language. Humans seem to be the only ones that are able to talk aboutthings that are not here and not now. In Hurford (2007) it is shown that animals doshow signs of the beginnings of displaced reference, though not in their language,but in their cognitive capacities.When an animal has achieved object permanence, it is aware that an objectcontinues to exist, also when no sensory information about the object is available.This capacity is present in many animals, but there is a general trend: the morean animal genetically resembles humans, the better it performs at different ‘dis-placement tasks’. This indicates that object permanence has been important in theevolution of a species that has linguistic capacities:The capacity to know something about an object, even when ‘it isn’tthere’ is a first step along the road to the impressive characteristics ofhuman languages, their capacity for displaced reference. (Hurford,2007, p. 72)Thus, Hurford sketches an evolutionary trajectory, on the basis of cognitiveresearch, that starts from object permanence in animals’ cognitive capacities andends in displaced reference in human language.Support for this trajectory can be found in recent work in the field of linguis-tics: the windows approach. This is a perspective on language emergence thathas been adopted in the work by Jackendoff (2002), Botha (2005) and goes backin part on earlier work by Bickerton. It studies (among other phenomena) re-stricted linguistic systems, such as pidgin languages, home sign systems and earlystages of untutored second language acquisition by adults. These language formsall arise in situations where the resources for first language learning under nor-mal circumstances are unavailable. The different restricted systems show strikingsimilarities. Therefore, they may tell us something about the cognitive strategieson which language builds, or even about principles from evolutionarily early lan-guage, and thereby contribute to the language evolution debate.From various studies of temporal expressions in early second language ac-quisition and home signs (Benazzo, 2006; Morford & Goldin-Meadow, 1997) itbecomes clear that even in the most ‘primitive’ stadia of these systems (when littlegrammatical means are available to speakers or signers; utterances consist of onlyseveral words, and almost no verbs are used), displaced reference appears: sub-jects make reference to past and future. They do this in relatively rigorous ways,and much work is left to the interpreter, but such an early appearance of displacedreference tells us that it is apparently a fundamental feature of language and musthave been present already in evolutionarily early language.The conclusions drawn on the basis of the ‘window work’ described here cansupport and extend the evolutionary picture sketched by Hurford, but also forceus to make precise claims about the relation between cognition and language:should the fact that we can talk about remote things really count as a property oflanguage?ReferencesBenazzo, S. (2006, March). The expression of temporality in early second lan-guage varieties and adult home signs. (Paper presented at NIAS Workshop‘Restricted Linguistic Systems as Winows on Language Genesis’)Botha, R. (2005). On the Windows Approach to language evolution. Languageand Communication, 25.Hockett, C. F. (1960). The origin of speech. Scientific American, 203, 88-96.Hurford, J. R. (2007). The origins of meaning. Oxford University Press.Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar,evolution. Oxford University Press.Kirby, S. (2007). The evolution of language. In R. Dunbar & L. Barrett (Eds.),Oxford handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 669–681). Oxford Uni-versity Press.Morford, J. P., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (1997). From here and now to there andthen: The development of displaced reference in homesign and English.Child development, 68(3), 420–435.

Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution.

From here and now to there and then: The development of displaced reference in homesign and English. Child development,

The evolution of language. In

The expression of temporality in early second language varieties and adult home signs. (Paper presented at

The origin of speech.

The origins of meaning.

On There and Then: from object permanence to displaced reference

On There and Then: from object permanence to displaced reference

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Edinburgh Research Explorer