Article published in:
Biolinguistic Investigations on the Language Faculty
Edited by Anna Maria Di Sciullo
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 235] 2016
► pp. 3–40

The biolinguistics program

Questions and hypotheses

| Université du Québec à Montréal \ Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières
| Université du Québec à Montréal \ Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières
The Biolinguistics Program is an emergent interdisciplinary field encompassing natural sciences, neurosciences and the humanities. Its core object of inquiry is human language. The overarching questions it raises are the following: what is language and what is the relation between language and biology. The central hypothesis it brings to the fore is that human language has a biological basis as well as unique traits that make language unique in the biological world. This paper details some of the specific questions and the hypotheses that have been formulated in this field, and it considers recent works on the intersection of language and biology. We start by stating the rationale for Biolinguistics. We then identify the questions and hypotheses raised by this field. Finally, we consider works that aim to bridge the explanatory gap between language and biology while preserving the unique properties of language.
Published online: 24 November 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.235.01sci
References

References

Avrutin, S. & Wexler, K.
1992 Development of principle B in Russian: Coindexation at LF and coreference. Language Acquisition 2: 259-306. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baauw, S.
1999 The role of the clitic-full pronoun distinction in the acquisition of pronominal coreference. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, A. Greenhill, H. Littlefield & C. Tano (eds), 32-43. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Baauw S., Escobar, M. & Philip, W.
1997 A delay of principle B effect in Spanish speaking children: The role of lexical feature acquisition. In Proceedings of the GALA 97 Conference on Language Acquisition, A. Sorace, C. Heycock & R. Shillcock (eds), 16 -21. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Bahlmann J., Schubotz R.I. & Friederici, A.D.
2008 Hierarchical artificial grammar processing engages Broca’s area. NeuroImage 42(2): 525-34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berwick, C.R.
2011 All you need is Merge. All you need is Merge: Biology, computation, and language from the bottom up. In The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty, A.M. Di Sciullo & C. Boeckx (eds), 461–491. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Berwick, R.C., Beckers, G.J., Okanoya, K. & Bolhuis, J.J.
2012 A bird’s eye view of human language evolution. Front. Evol. Neurosci. 4(5). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berwick C.R.
. & Chomsky, N 2011 The Biolinguistic Program. The current state of its development. In The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty, A.M. Di Sciullo & C. Boeckx (eds), 13–45. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D.
1990 Language and Species. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C.
2011 The emergence of the language faculty, from a biolinguistic point of view. In The Oxford Handbook of Language Evolution, M. Tallerman & K. Gibson (eds), 492-201. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bolhuis, J.J. & Everaert, M.
(eds) 2013 Birdsong, Speech, and Language: Exploring the Evolution of Mind and Brain. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Byrne, R.W. & Russon, A.E.
1998 Learning by imitation: A hierarchical approach. Brain and Behavioral Sciences 21: 667-721. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chien, Y.C. & Wexler, K.
1990 Children’s knowledge of locality conditions in bindings as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language Acquisition 1: 225–295. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N.
2015 Problems of projections: Extensions. In Structures, strategies and beyond: Studies in honour of Adriana Belletti, E. Di Domenico, C. Hamann & S. Matteini (eds), 1–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 Problems of projections. Lingua 130: 33–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 Poverty of the stimulus unfinished business. Ms, MIT.Google Scholar
2008b.The Biolinguistic Program: Where does it stand today? Ms, MIT.Google Scholar
2008a On phases. In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory. Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, R. Freiden, C.P. Otero & M.L. Zubizarreta (eds), 133–166. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 Of mind and language. Biolinguistics 1: 9-27.Google Scholar
2005 Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 1–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001 Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, M. Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1988 Language and Problems of Knowledge. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1986 Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origins and Use. New York NY: Praeger.Google Scholar
1981 Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa lectures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
1968 Language and Mind. New York NY: Harcourt, Brace & World. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1965 Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1957 Three models for the description of language. IRE Trans. Inf. Theory 2: 113–124. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Collins, C.
1997 Local Economy. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Coolidge, F.L & Wynn, T.
2005 Working memory, its executive functions, and the emergence of modern thinking. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 15(1): 5-26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Darwin, C.
1871 The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: John Murray. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Di Sciullo, A.M.
2014 Minimalism and I-morphology. In Minimalism and Beyond: Radicalizing the Interfaces [Linguistic Faculty and Beyond 11], P. Kosta, S. Franks & T. Radeva-Bork (eds), 267–286. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 Exocentric compounds, language and proto-language. Language Information Society 20: 1–26.Google Scholar
2012 Biolinguistics, minimalist grammars and the emergence of complex numerals. Presented at Theoretical Linguistics/Biolinguistics Workshop (EVOLANG 9) , 13 March, Kyoto.
2011 A biolinguistic approach to variation. In The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty. A.M. Di Sciullo & C. Boeckx (eds), 305-328. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2004 Morphological phases. In The 4th GLOW in Asia 2003. Generative Grammar in a Broader Perspective, J.-Y. Yoon (ed.), 113-137. The Korean Generative Grammar Circle and Cognitive Science, Seoul National University.Google Scholar
2005 Asymmetry in Morphology. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, A.M. & Somesfalean, S.
2015 Object pronouns in the evolution of Romanian: a biolinguistic perspective. In Formal approaches to DPs in Old Romanian, V. Hill (ed.), 269-290. Leiden/Boston: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Di Sciullo, A.M., Nicolis, M. & Somesfalean, S.
2013 Evo-devo language universals. Paper presented at the International Linguists Conference 19 , University of Geneva.
Di Sciullo, A.M. & Somesfalean, S.
2013 Variation in the Position of the Definite Determiner in Romanian: a Biolinguistic Perspective. Romance Linguistics in the Pacific: Variations in Time and Space. Special Issue of the Australian Journal of Linguistics 33(2): 121-139. Taylor&Francis.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, A.M.. et al.
2010 The Biological Nature of Human Language. Biolinguistics 4: 4-34.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, A.M. & Isac, D.
2008 The asymmetry of Merge. Biolinguistics 2: 260–290.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, A.M. & Aguero-Bautista, C.
2008 The delay of principle B effect (DPBE) and its absence in some languages. Language and Speech 51:77-100. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Embick, D.
2010 Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fitch, W.T.
2011 “Deep homology’’ in the biology and evolution of language. In The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty, A.M. Di Sciullo & C. Boeckx (eds), 135–166. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Fitch, W.T. & Hauser, M.D.
2004 Computational constraints on syntactic processing in a nonhuman primate. Science 303: 377-380. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fox, D.
2000 Scope and Semantic Interpretation. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gallistel, C.R.
1990 The Organization of Learning. Cambridge MA: Bradford Books/The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gopnik, M.
1990 Feature blindness: A case study. Language Acquisition 1(2): 139-164. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grodzinsky, J. & Reinhart, T.
1993 The innateness of binding and coreference. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 69-102.Google Scholar
Hall, B.K.
Descent with modification: The unity underlying homology and homoplasy as seen through an analysis of development and evolution. Biological Reviews 78: 409–433. Crossref
Hauser, M.D., Chomsky, N. & Fitch, T.
2002 The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve. Science 198: 1569-79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hauser, M.D.
2000 What do animals think about numbers? American Scientist 88(2): 144-151. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hauser, M.D., MacNeilage, P. & Ware, M.
1996 Numerical representations in primates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 93(4): 1514-1517. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hauser, M.D., Yang, C., Berwick, R.C., Tattersall, I., Ryan, M.J., Watumull, J., Chomsky, N. & Lewontin, R.C.
2014 The mystery of language acquisition. Frontiers in Psychology 5. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N. & Uriagereka, J.
2002 Reprojections. In Derivation and explanation in the Minimalist Program, S. Epstein & T. Seely (eds), 106-132. Malden MA: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huang, J.
1998[1982] Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Hurford, J.R.
2014 Origins of Langage. A Slim Guide. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, J.R.
2011 What is the human language faculty: Two views? Language 87(3): 586-624. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, L.
2011 Biolinguistic investigations: Genetics and dynamics. In The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty, A.M. Di Sciullo & C. Boeckx (eds), 126–134. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2000 Biolinguistics: Exploring the Biology of Language. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R.
2011 Why are there no directionality parameters? In Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, M. Byram Washburn, K. McKinneyBock, E. Varis, A. Sawyer & B. Tomaszewicz (eds), 1-23. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
1994 The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Koster, C.
1993 Errors in Anaphora Acquisition. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Larson, R.
2011 Clauses, propositions and phases. In The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty, A.M. Di Sciullo & C. Boeckx (eds), 366–391. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H.
2011 What kind of computing device is the human language faculty. In The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty, A.M. Di Sciullo & C. Boeckx (eds), 354–365. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Lenneberg, E.H.
1967 Biological Foundations of Language. New York NY: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Levin, M. & Palmer A.R.
2007 Left-right patterning from the inside out: Widespread evidence for intracellular control. BioEssays 29: 271-287. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lewontin R.C.
2000 The Triple Helix: Gene, Organism and Environment. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis. T.
2013 Ants ‘use math’ to find fastest route. Livescience. http://​www​.livescience​.com​/28795​-ants​-find​-fastest​-route​-using​-math​.htmlGoogle Scholar
Lewontin R.
2004 Response to ‘Selection for Asymmetry”. Science 306: 812. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Li, R. & Bowerman, B.
2010 Symmetry breaking in biology. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology 2(3): A003475. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, D.
1991 How to Set Parameters. Arguments from Language Change. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1982 The Language Lottery. Toward a Biology of Grammars. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1979 Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Marantz, A.
2008 Phases and words. In Phases in the Theory of Grammar, S.-H. Choe (ed.), 191–222. Seoul: Dong In.Google Scholar
McKee, C.
1992, A comparison of pronouns and anaphors in Italian and English acquisition. Language Acquisition 2: 21–54. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McGonigle, B., Chalmers M. & Dickinson, A.
2003 Concurrent disjoint and reciprocal classification by Cebus Apella in seriation tasks: Evidence for hierarchical organization. Animal Cognition 6:185-197. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moro, A.
2000 Dynamic Antisymmetry. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Musso, M., Moro, A., Glauche, V., Rijntjes, M., Reichenbach, J., Büchel, C. & Weiller, C.
2003 Broca’s area and the language instinct. Nature Neuroscience 6(7): 774‑781. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nobrega, V.A. & Miyagawa, S.
2015 The precedence of syntax in the rapid emergence of human language in evolution as defined by the Integration Hypothesis. Frontiers Psychology 6: 271.Google Scholar
Palmer, R.
2009 Animal asymmetry. Current Biology 19(12): 473-477. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, A.R.
2004 Symmetry breaking and the evolution of development. Science 306: 828-833. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996 From symmetry to asymmetry: Phylogenetic patterns of asymmetry variation in animals and their evolutionary significance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 93: 14279-14286.
Philip, W. & Coopmans, P.
1996 The role of lexical feature acquisition in the development of pronominal anaphora. In Amsterdam Series on Child Language Development 5, W. Philip & F. Wijnen (eds). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Piattelli-Palmarini, M.
(ed.) 1980 Language and Learning: The Debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Piattelli Palmarini, M. & Uriagereka, J.
2011 A geneticist’s dream, a linguist’s nightmare: The case of FOXP2. In The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty, A.M. Di Sciullo & C. Boeckx (eds), 100–125. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Piattelli-Palmarini, M.
. & Berwick, R.C (eds) 2013 Rich Languages from Poor Inputs. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Pinker, S.
1994 The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language. New York NY: HarperCollins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. & Bloom, P.
1990 Natural language and natural selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13(4): 707-784. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Poeppel, D. & Embick, D.
2005 Defining the relation between linguistics and neuroscience. In Twenty-First Century Psycholinguistics: Four Cornerstones, A. Cutler (ed.), 103-118. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Progovac, L.
2015 Evolutionary Syntax. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 Grammars within without recursion: Implications for evolutionary studies. Paper presented to Illinois State University Conference on Recursion in Human Languages , Normal IL.
2006 The syntax of nonsententials: Small clauses and phrases at the root. In The Syntax of Nonsententials [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 93], L. Progovac, K. Paesani, E. Casielles & E. Barton (eds), 33–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Richards, N.
2002 Very local A’ movement in a root-first derivation. In Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, S.D. Epstein & T.D. Seely, 227-245. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 Deriving the edge: What’s in a phase? Ms, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L.
1990 Relativized Minimality. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, I.
2011 Parametric hierarchies: Some observations. Presented at the workshop on linguistic variation and the minimalist program , Universidad Autonoma de Madrid.
2007 Diachronic Syntax. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. & Roussou, A.
2003 Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rugani, R., Vallortigara, G., Vallini, B. & Regolin, L.
2011 Asymmetrical number-space mapping in the avian brain. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory 95: 231‑238. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rugani, R., Fontanari, L., Simoni, E., Regolin, L. & Vallortigara, G.
2009 Arithmetic in newborn chicks. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B , Biological Sciences 276: 2451–2460. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schino, G., Tiddi, B. & di Sorrento, P.
2006 Simultaneous classification by rank and kinship in Japanese macaques. Animal Behaviour 71: 1069-1074. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seyfarth, R.M., Cheney, D.L. & Bergman, T.J.
2005 Primate social cognition and the origins of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9(6): 264‑266. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shubin, N., Tabin, C. & Carroll, S.
1997 Fossils, genes and the evolution of animal limbs. Nature 388: 639–648. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, J.
2008 Syntactic Anchors. On Semantic Structuring. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002 Derivations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
1999 Multiple spell-out. In Working Minimalism, S.D. Epstein & N. Hornstein (eds), 251-282. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1998 Rime and Reason. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wexler, K.
1998 Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: A new explanation of the optional infinitive stage. Lingua 106: 23-79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Haspelmath, Martin
2020. Human Linguisticality and the Building Blocks of Languages. Frontiers in Psychology 10 Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 january 2021. 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.