Evolution and Language "Emergence"

Steve Long Salinas17 at AOL.COM
Fri Dec 6 15:34:57 UTC 2002


I wrote:
> If we did find an individual who could go off and build, say, a
> television set from scratch all by himself, should we conclude that
> its an "emergent phenomena" -- an ability that was inside him all
> along and just happened to pop out under the "right confluences."

In a message dated 12/6/02 1:40:07 AM, dparvaz at UNM.EDU writes:
<<I guess I work with a different definition of "emergent" -- one which
necessitates complex dynamical systems. To me that means some sort of
critical mass of humanity (so far?), PLUS some overlapping set of faculties,
PLUS the need to communicate. And perhaps PLUS is multiplication! >>

It's important to distinguish between emergent traits in the development of
an individual versus emergent traits in evolution.  (The famous old dictum
that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" can and has been misleading, though
-- as Syd Lamb pointed out in an earlier post -- language development in a
child should give us clues about the evolutionary gap in primate language.)

The traditional 19th century scientific definition of "emergent" (see eg the
original OED) was "an effect produced by a combination of several causes, but
not capable of being regarded as the sum of their individual effects.
Opposed to resultant."  It was early, if not first, used by the George Henry
Lewes (1817-1878) (in the series "Problems in Life and Mind" which included
"The Physical Basis of Mind" ) who used it to explain the
non-"automatonistic" but "biological" operation of the mind.  The mind having
a "a twofold root, man being not only an animal organism but an unit in the
social organism; and hence the complete theory of its functions and faculties
must be sought in this twofold direction.”

So the word "emergent" did not first attempt to explain how mind or language
evolved, but how it worked -- an important difference.  In fact, I don't
think Lewes idea of mind (if not language) qualitatively differentiated
between animal and human.  And that's because of his holistic view of "mind".
 (“It is the man, and not the brain, that thinks: it is the organism as a
whole, and not one organ, that feels and acts.”)

When "emergent" starts being used to describe the evolution of a trait (not a
gene, a trait), we run into a problem.  A non-functional trait sitting around
with nothing to do for eons, waiting for a function does not make
evolutionary sense.  New accidental functions for old structures that
developed for old functions (e.g., feathers and wings) do happen.  But a
talent for playing piano had to be doing something else while it waited for
Chopin show up.

The complex vocal cords of humans, for example, had to have had a function
while they were developing.  If other primates do not have or lost that
complexity, somewhere along the line between that lack of complexity and
human complexity, complexity itself was being favored in humans.  What would
favor the development of complex vocal production?  Did our "cave people"
ancestors vocalize their wooly mammoth prey to death?

And so the strong indication is that the biological basis of language
developed naturalistically out of the animal communicative function.  Unless
we can figure out what those organs were doing in the mean time, we are on
safe ground concluding they were always functioning to communicate throughout
their development.  And that makes language the RESULT of earlier animal
communications.  There is nothing to indicate language EMERGED in
evolutionary history.

I wrote:
> A individual human armed with only syntax and grammar in his brain
> doesn't have the survival tools of a dodo "in the wild."

Dan wrote:
<<I've been asked by students in syntax class what use any of this stuff
is. They're probably reading this message right now. Thanks a lot.>>

An internal combustion engine alone will not get you on the freeway or, on a
grander scale, tell you where you are or should be going.
I guess if you just want to be a driver, you really don't have to know how an
internal combustion engine works. But if you ever have to look under the
hood, there's a lot of reasons to be prepared for what you will be seeing.

Steve Long



More information about the Funknet mailing list