Analysing the analytic: problems with holistic theories of the evolution of syntax

Maggie Tallerman 

University of Durham

maggie.tallerman@durham.ac.uk

Until relatively recently, most researchers saw syntax as evolving from
an earlier stage with only single words, strung randomly together in a
structureless protolanguage.  However, other recent work proposes that
words are not primary, but emerge from longer, entirely arbitrary
strings of sounds, via fractionation (Arbib 2002, 2003).  In this
analytic approach (Wray 2000, 2002) protolanguage consists of a fixed
set of formulaic utterances, used 'for getting things done and for
preserving social stability' (Wray 2000).  'Holistic' utterances are
unanalysed wholes, with no consistent regularities.  For instance, Wray
suggests such strings as _tebima_ 'give that to her' and _kumapi_ 'share
this with her'.  In time, unanalysed material is segmented into
meaningful units, when, by chance, phonetically similar substrings occur
in several utterances, and can be imbued with a common meaning.  In the
examples above, _ma_ occurs in both strings, and the meaning 'her'
occurs in both formulaic utterances, so _ma_ comes to mean 'her'. 

     In this paper, I dissect the analytic view of early protolanguage,
and examine a number of serious flaws in the arguments proposed for it. 
The main problems are summarized in (1)-(5):

1.  Logically, similar substrings must often occur in two (or more)
utterances which do NOT share any common elements of meaning at least as
many times as they occur in two utterances which DO share semantic
elements.  For instance, a string _mabali_ also contains the _ma_
sequence, but means 'put that rock down!'.  What ensures that _ma_ gets
associated with 'her'? Repeated usage alone can't establish all and only
the right 'regularities' in the proto-lexicon. 

2.  Wray suggests that holistic protolanguage is not referential.  In
fact, it is entirely referential, but all the utterances refer to whole
complex events.  Whereas vocabulary can be stored by pairing a concept
with the arbitrary sound string used to denote it, holistic utterances
must be stored by memorizing each complex event and learning which
unanalysable string is appropriate at each event.  This task is harder,
not simpler, than learning words as symbols, and therefore less suitable
for an early protolanguage scenario. 

3.  Although formulaic utterances are common in modern language, and
often opaque in their syntax and/or semantics - 'the more, the merrier';
'he bought a pig in a poke' - they rarely contravene existing syntactic
rules.  So, an idiom in English could not have OSV word order.  This
suggests that formulaic utterances are parasitic on existing syntax,
emerging from earlier states of syntax via well-known processes (such as
grammaticalization).  Formulae come from existing grammar, rather than
providing tailor-made models for syntax. 

4.  Wray and Arbib liken formulaic utterances to the 'calls' of primate
communication.  But primate vocalization is handled by different parts
of the brain than human language (Myers 1976, Bradshaw & Rogers 1992),
and the homologues of Wernicke's and Broca's areas are not used for
vocalization.  Thus, the continuity problem persists: holistic calls are
not the precursor to language. 

5.  Words will never appear out of formulae unless the hominids using
holistic protolanguage have a) the motor control required to produce
recognizable substrings and b) the neural capacity to recognize phonetic
strings.  But the holistic approach endows these speakers with a greater
ability in both areas than would be needed for one-by-one words: the
formulae are necessarily longer strings (otherwise they couldn't be
broken down) and the speakers need to recognize and utilize subparts of
these longer strings.  How could this ability exist at the pre-syntactic
stage?

References

Arbib, Michael A., 2002. The Mirror System, imitation, and the evolution of language. In
Chrystopher Nehaniv & Kerstin Dautenhahn, (eds.), Imitation in Animals and Artifacts,
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Arbib, Michael A., 2003. The evolving Mirror System: a neural basis for language readiness.
In Morten H. Christiansen & Simon Kirby, (eds.). Language Evolution. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.  182-200.

Bradshaw, John & Lesley Rogers, 1992. The evolution of lateral asymmetries, language, tool
use and intellect. New York: Academic Press.

Myers, Ronald E., 1976. Comparative neurology of vocalization and speech: proof of a
dichotomy. In Stevan Harnad, Horst D. Steklis, & Jane Lancaster, (eds.). Origins and
Evolution of Language and Speech. New York: New York Academy of Sciences. 745-757.

Wray, Alison, 2000. Holistic utterances in protolanguage: the link from primates to humans.
In Chris Knight, Michael Studdert-Kennedy & James R Hurford, (eds.).  The Evolutionary
Emergence of Language: Social Function and the Origins of Linguistic Form. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. 285-302.

Wray, Alison, 2002. Dual processing in protolanguage: performance without competence. In
Alison Wray, (ed.). The Transition to Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 113-137.