Cover not available
Article published In:
Tracking Language Evolution as an Interdisciplinary, Cross-Theoretical Enterprise
Edited by Livio Gaeta
[Evolutionary Linguistic Theory 2:2] 2020
► pp. 195–215

Co-evolution of internalization and externalization in the emergence of the human lexicon

A perspective from generative grammar and cognitive linguistics

| Kyoto University

There has been a long-standing controversy in the context of language evolution on whether the original function of human language was internal thought or external communication. However, given the fact that language clearly serves both functions, internalization and externalization must have been co-evolutionarily acted in the emergence of human language. This article proposes a theoretical hypothesis about this co-evolutionary relationship of internalization and externalization, which especially explains the emergence of the human lexicon. To discuss the evolution of language from a comprehensive perspective, this article proposes a promising model that integrates two approaches with different standpoints: generative grammar and cognitive linguistics. This paper also examines the definition and nature of the lexicon and lexical items based on this integrated model. The hypothesis presented here demonstrates that the co-evolutionary work of internalization and externalization has been involved in two processes in the development of the lexicon: the establishment of syntactic objects (lexical items) and the improvement of creativity responsible for the expansion of lexicon size. The main conclusion is that these processes have formed a positive feedback loop and provided our lexicon with complex and unique properties.

Keywords: co-evolution, internalization, externalization, lexicon, lexical items as concepts
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Approach
    • 2.1Generative grammar
    • 2.2Cognitive linguistics
    • 2.3The integration of generative grammar and cognitive linguistics
  • 3.Lexical items and concepts
    • 3.1What is lexicon?
    • 3.2The remaining problems
    • 3.3The peculiarity of human concepts: Concrete and abstract concepts
  • 4.Co-evolution of internalization and externalization in the lexicon
    • 4.1The first step
    • 4.2The second step
    • 4.3The loop of internalization and externalization
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Conflict of interest
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 15 January 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/elt.00022.fuj
References

References

Adorni, R. & Proverbio, A. M.
(2012) The neural manifestation of the word concreteness effect: An electrical neuroimaging study. Neuropsychologia, 501, 880–891. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berwick, R. C. & Chomsky, N.
(2016) Why only us: Language and evolution. Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borer, H.
(2013) Taking form: Structuring sense Vol. III. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014) The categories of roots. In A. Alexiadou, H. Borer, & F. Schäfer (Eds.), The syntax of roots and the roots of syntax (pp. 112–148). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.
(2012) Domain-general processes as the basis for grammar. In T. Maggie & K. R. Gibson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language evolution (pp. 528–536). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N.
(1970) Remarks on nominalization. In R. A. Jacobs & P. S. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar (pp. 184–221). Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
(1981) Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
(1986) Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
(1995) The Minimalist program. Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
(2005) Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 361, 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007a) Approaching UG from below. In U. Sauerland & H. M. Gärtner (Eds.). Interfaces + recursion = language? (pp. 1–29). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2007b) Of minds and language. Biolinguistics, 11, 9–27.Google Scholar
(2010) Some simple evo-devo theses: How true might they be for language? In R. K. Larson, V. Déprez, & H. Yamakido. (Eds). The evolution of human language: Biolinguistic perspectives (pp. 45–62). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014) Minimal recursion: Exploring the prospects. In T. Roeper & M. Speas (Eds.), Recursion: Complexity in cognition (pp. 1–15). Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N., Gallego, A. J., & Ott, D.
(2019) Generative grammar and the faculty of language: Insights, questions, and challenges. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 01, 229–261. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, D.
(2015) The morpheme: A theoretical introduction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Embick, D. & Noyer, R.
(2007) Distributed morphology and the syntax-morphology interface. In G. Ramchand & C. Reiss. (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces (pp. 289–324). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fitch, W. T.
(2017) On externalization and cognitive continuity in language evolution. Mind & Language, 32 (5), 597–606. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. A.
(1983) The modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fujita, H.
(2017) On the emergence of human language: With special reference to the evolution of lexical items (Unpublished master’s thesis). Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.Google Scholar
(2019) From lexical protolanguage to modern language with functional categories. Paper presented at the 6th edition of the Protolang conference series (Protolang 6), Lisbon. Available online: [URL]
Fujita, K.
(2013) Seiseibumpo kara shinkagengogaku e: Seiseibumpo no aratana kuwadate [From generative grammar to evolutionary linguistics: New generative enterprise]. In M. Ike-uchi & G. Takuya. (Eds). Seisei gengo kenkyu no ima [Current generative linguistic research] (pp. 95–123). Tokyo: Hitsuzi Shobo (in Japanese).Google Scholar
(2017) On the parallel evolution of syntax and lexicon: A Merge-only view. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 43 (B), 178–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Golston, C.
(2018) Phi-features in animal cognition. Biolinguistics, 121, 55–98.Google Scholar
Halle, M. & Marantz, A.
(1993) Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser. (Eds). The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of sylvain bromberger (pp. 111–176). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harley, H.
(2014) On the identity of roots. Theoretical Linguistics, 40 (3–4), 225–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, P.
(2016) The meaning of ‘life’ and other abstract words: Insights from neuropsychology. Journal of Neuropsychology, 10 (2), 317–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hurford, J. R.
(2018) Mutation, modularity, merge, communication and selection. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 211, 76–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Imai, M.
(2013) Kotoba no hattatsu no nazo wo toku [The enigma of lexical acquisition: How children construct the system of the lexicon]. Tokyo: Chikuma Shobo (in Japanese).Google Scholar
Johnson, M.
(1987) The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kousta, S., Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Andrews, M., & Del Campo, E.
(2011) The representation of abstract words: Why emotion matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(1), 14–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kyoya, I.
(2014) The relation between abstract concepts and concrete information: A comparison of concrete words and abstract words. The journal of cultural sciences, 6361, 1031–1023 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2000) A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 1–63). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Marantz, A.
(1997) No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 4(2), 201–225.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, D.
(2020) Blind Merge (Unpublished master’s thesis). Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.Google Scholar
Matsuzawa, T.
(2001) Primate foundations of human intelligence: a view of tool use in nonhuman primates and fossil hominids. In T. Matsuzawa (Ed.), Primate origins of human cognition and behavior (pp. 3–25). Tokyo: Springer-Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J.
(1998) Language form and language function. Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Pepperberg, I. M.
(1987) Acquisition of the same/different concept by an African Grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus): Learning with respect to categories of color, shape, and material. Animal Learning & Behavior, 15 (4), 423–432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) Cognitive and communicative abilities of Grey Parrots. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 111, 83–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S.
(2010) The cognitive niche: Coevolution of intelligence, sociality, and language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1071, 8893–8999. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pleyer, M. & Winters, J.
(2014) Integrating cognitive linguistics and language evolution research. Theoria et Historia Scientiarum, 111, 19–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pulman, S. G.
(1983) Word meaning and belief. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Schlenker, P., Chemla, E., & Zuberbühler, K.
(2016) What do monkey calls mean? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(12), 894–904. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seyfarth, R. M., Cheney, D. L., & Marler, P.
(1980) Monkey responses to three different alarm calls: Evidence of predator classification and semantic communication. Science 210 (4471), 801–803. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. R.
(2003) Linguistic categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M.
(1999) The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, Mass.; London, UK: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
(2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
(2008) Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA; London, England: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vigliocco, G., Kousta, S.-T., Della Rosa, P. A., Vinson, D. P., Tettamanti, M., Devlin, J. T., & Cappa, S. F.
(2014) The neural representation of abstract words: The role of emotion. Cerebral Cortex, 241, 1767–1777. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vonk, J. M. J., Obler, L. K., & Jonkers, R.
(2019) Levels of abstractness in semantic noun and verb processing: The role of sensory-perceptual and sensory‑motor information. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 48 (3), 601–615. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wright, A. A., & Cumming, W. W.
(1971) Color-naming functions for the pigeon. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 151, 7–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Fujita, Haruka & Koji Fujita
2022. Human language evolution: a view from theoretical linguistics on how syntax and the lexicon first came into being. Primates 63:5 ► pp. 403 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.