Did Our Ancestors Speak a Holistic Protolanguage?
Abstract
There is debate surrounding the evolution of complex language. Mainly the evolution of complex language from protolanguage is termed to be a synthetic approach. Different people have different views on the evolution of complex language. Some argue that the evolution of complex language is as a result of holistic approach while others argue that the evolution of complex language is a result of holistic approach. In the synthetic approach single words arose first in evolution of complex language.
Then the words were combined as syntax evolved. This is the argument presented in synthetic approach. Scholars claiming that complex languages evolved through holistic approach have different views, and order of evolution. In this approach, scholars suggest that words emerged from longer, entirely arbitrary strings of sound. They evolved from non -compositional utterances through a process of fractionation. In this view the holistic utterances have no internal structure, but they represent whole messages. The different order, and structure of complex language has arose a lot of concerns. Some people criticize the holistic approach. This is because it has some shortcomings. The synthetic approach is said to be real as it has no shortcomings evidenced in the holistic approach. The paper analyzes how people have criticized the holistic approach because of its deficiency. The holistic approach is criticized because it lacks clear definition of origin of words and meaning. The synthetic approach is the ideal approach to develop complex language as it has more benefits.
Introduction
The evolution of complex language results from synthetic approach. This is because the approach has more advantages than holistic approach. The approach is also valid, and has also valid evidences to support its argument. The holistic approach has a lot of problems, and disadvantages. This is because the assumptions made by most scholars on the approach are not valid. The proposal used in this approach is not valid as it has some deficit. The shortcomings presented by the holistic approach have made a lot of people to criticize it. Most people criticize the approach, and argue that it complex language did not evolve through holistic approach. This paper analyzes the validity of holistic approach, and its arguments.
Validity of holistic approach.
The argument that complex language evolved through holistic approach is not valid. This is because the approach has a lot of assumptions that are not true (Carstairs-McCarthy 2005). There are several problems evidenced in this approach that make arguments of authors supporting the approach invalid. The proposal used in holistic approach has some deficit. The first problem in this approach is the assumption that the strings were longer enough to produce analyzable parts which are equivalent to morphemes (Fitch, Hauser &Chomsky 2005). The assumption is not true because there other logical alternatives. For example, the set of holistic utterances could be made up of single syllables which are different from each other. For instance, if the system contains twelve constants, and five vowels, then the system can have 60 different monosyllables. This shows that though the set of utterances contains different syllables (Carstairs-McCarthy 2005). This disapproves the assumption made by the holistic approach that the set of utterance contains equal or similar utterances. Another disapproval of the holistic approach is on the memory.
According to Wrays idea to support holistic approach, he suggests that in holistic approach strings of any length, and any phonological structure can be used despite the limitation of memory. This is not true because the process of fractionation must have something to breakdown into words, but in the assumption above the process of fractionation has nothing to work on. This still disapproves the use of holistic approach to develop complex language (Christiansen &Kirby 2003). Another argument presented by Wary on holistic approach is that the monosyllabic holistic utterances can still turn into words, or a word. These words do not have full meaning of events or complex events. Thus, the holistic approach still has some deficiency that is not evidenced in the synthesis approach. The holistic approach is not strong enough to explain the evolution of complex language. It is clear that complex language have not evolved through holistic approach as in holistic approach we have words (Christiansen &Kirby 2003). Though, most supporters of holistic approach argue that words are not part of holistic process, words are still part of the approach. The difference between the words and the utterance is that wary refers to words as referential items while holistic utterances are not referential. Holistic references are manipulative, and affective (Fitch & Hauser 2004).
The proposal made in the holistic approach is also deficit, and this presents another disadvantage of holistic approach. Wary and Arbib assume that holistic utterances were already composed of segments of modern language. They assume that a phonological inventory was already put in place before evolution of complex language. Then the messages stored developed into strings of sound that can be analyzed, and later into words (Calvin 2000). The holistic approach does not take into account the existence of discrete segments. This makes the proposal to have some deficiencies. Another problem of holistic approach is that the approach has assumed the existence of modern phonetic segments. The proposal includes the three factors that are responsible for evolution. The holistic model presents a misunderstanding of how language works. This is because the segments in this approach are assumed to exist.
The holistic approach does no explain how the segments have come to exist. In addition, the holistic approach does not provide cues to handle fractionation of utterances into words. The approach assumes that the words are generated through fractionation. This presents another deficit of holistic approach (Calvin 2000). Without proper cues it is difficulty to explain how utterances are converted into words yet the learner has no cue. In a language the learner or infant has to use cues to differentiate words, and define the boundaries of the words used. This makes it easy for the learner to learn the new language. In the holistic approach things are different as there is no cue. Thus, complex languages did not evolve through holistic approach as people claim. The holistic approach makes it difficulty for learners to identify phonetic that are important in speech, and which are not important in speech. The holistic approach assumes that words or phrases developed through the approach are pronounced the same, or mean the same.
This is not true because the words used in a sentence mean differently. A normal language does not assume that words used in a sentence mean the same as holistic approach uses. This shows that normal languages differ from holistic approach. Hence, complex languages did not evolve as a result of holistic approach. Wray and Arbib who are supporters of the holistic approach assume that, sequences of segments which become morphemes are taken from holistic units. This is not true because you can’t have morphemes without phonemes (Burling 2000). This is because morphemes are composed of phonemes. Another issue is that you can’t have phonemes without words, since you one has to have semantic contrast, and minimal pairs so as to know what phonemes are. Therefore, it is difficulty to extract morphemes from holistic utterances. This disapproves the use of holistic approach to develop complex words. Phonetic storage can be built from speech, but it is difficulty to build a set of words from segments picked randomly. This is because one is not able to identify critical contrast.
Formulae can not be used as models for grammar because they lack productivity. Formulae survive because they are not analyzable, or no one wants to analyze them. This makes them unproductive as they do not follow any grammatical sequence. This shows that holistic utterances can not be used to develop complex languages. This is because they do not follow the right grammatical syntax, and also they do not give the speaker a chance of analyzing them. Holistic utterances are not easy to remember or learn (Burling 2000). This makes it difficulty for the learner to master the words. This is because strings of holistic protolanguage are composed of random phonetic strings. The strings do not follow any syntax, and one can write them in any manner. They do not stick to an agreed phonetic inventory. This makes them different from modern languages. Modern holistic utterances are easy to remember as they are built of linguistic components that are familiar. This makes it easy for the learner to remember the utterances in modern languages than in holistic protolanguage (Bickerton 2000).
In protolanguage, strings have nothing to relate as they only display the meaning. If people in the modern society are unable to recall the strings developed in protolanguage, then how comes that a hominid would remember the strings. Thus, complex languages did not evolve through holistic approach. This is because a hominid has small brain compared to normal human beings in the modern society. This disapproves Wray idea that complex languages evolved through holistic approach, and that hominid were able to analyze the language, and provide utterances that formed the language. This is a clear indication that holistic approach did not contribute much in evolution of complex language as the evidences given to support the idea are invalid( Bickerton 2000). The problem of learn ability is common in holistic approach as people disagree with Wray idea on learn ability. Wary claims that a hominid is able to learn strings in protolanguage. The hominid has a small brain, and it can not learn many utterances over the course of lifetime.
Holistic utterances are stored by memorizing complex event, and learning which unanalysable string fits each event (Bickerton 2000). It is difficulty to master each string, and event. Thus, the holistic utterances are not suitable for early protolanguage. In modern language a vocabulary is stored by pairing a concept with the sound string used to denote it. This is easy to learn unlike holistic utterances. The length of the strings assumed by holistic approach is not normal. This is because it is difficulty for hominid to learn the strings. The assumptions made in holistic approach contradict with the views of different people. This is because the assumptions are not valid, and the evidence used to support them is not clear at all. The contradictions make it clear that holistic approach did not contribute to evolution of complex languages, and our ancestors did not speak a holistic protolanguage. Thus, the views held by this approach are not true (Arbib 2005).
Criticism
The first criticism is based on where words come from. Wary criticizes the synthetic approach as the model does not define where referential words come from (Arbib 2005). This is because the holistic model assumes that there rare no referential words, but utterance strings. This is the reason wary criticize the synthetic model as it has referential words, and it has not defined the origin of the words. Other people criticize the holistic model because it does not explain where holistic utterances come from to form a language. It does not define where calls of other primates come from. Words in modern language are made by combining existing morphemes to give new meaning (Arbib 2005). Other words are adapted from other languages .In holistic model it is difficulty to explain the origin of utterances. This is because the methods used in modern language are not available for speakers of holistic language. Languages evolve from nouns and verbs, but in holistic approach it is difficulty for a protolanguage speaker to have those words and to know how to use them (Arbib 2005).
Another criticize about holistic approach is where the meaning come from. Most of the scholars have criticized the holistic approach as it does not provide a clear explanation of where meanings come from. In holistic approach the supporters of the approach assume that words or strings have the same meaning. This is because the strings have a common syllable. This is not true as different strings have different syllable, and they mean differently. So the assumption that strings mean the same in this approach is not right (Arbib 2003). Wary has criticized the synthetic approach. She criticizes the synthetic approach because it lacks full grammar. She says that synthetic approach lacks any principle that would help in its processing. She also suggests the approach is ambiguous to communicate usefully, and it also fails to fulfill the functions of a protolanguage.
The synthetic approach provides a wide range of words which give the user a chance to select the best word. The holistic approach does not provide the user with a wide range of holistic words, and utterances strings. This makes it easy for the user to select the words that fit his needs. People criticize the holistic approach because of its deficiency in words, and assumptions (Arbib 2003). Holistic approach does not follow any syntax when grouping words. or developing words. This makes it difficulty for the learner to understand the language. Many scholars criticize the holistic approach because of its invalid assumptions, and other shortcomings. This makes the holistic model unfit for development of complex languages. The observation of the holistic model shows that it is difficulty for hominids to learn how to make words from long strings as they have small brain. The synthetic approach is the approach preferred for evolution of complex languages as it has more advantages than the holistic model, and it has no assumptions (Arbib 2003).
Observations and comments
The holistic approach did not lead to evolution of complex languages as it has a lot of problems. The approach assumes that there are no words, but in synthetic approach there are words. This is not true because the strings are broken down through fractionation to words (Arbib 2003). This disapproves the assumption made in holistic approach. The proposal made in the approach is also not valid. From the analyzes of the Tallerman paper it is clear that holistic language did not lead to evolution of complex words, and our ancestors did not speak protolanguage. The holistic approach does not define the origin of utterances, and meanings, but other languages define the origin of words used to form a language (Hauser 2002).
The holistic approach has some deficiency, and it cannot support full evolution of complex words. It does not follow the right syntax when making sentences, or when grouping words (Hauser 2002). The words are grouped using different principles that distort their meaning, and grammatical arrangement. This makes the language not fit for development of complex language. It is also difficulty for learners to remember words in holistic approach as the words are stored in connection to a particular event. This is the reason why people disapprove the holistic approach. It is difficulty for hominids to learn such a complex language, and be able to remember the content. This is because they have a small brain. The strings used holistic approach is longer, and this makes the origin of the strings and development of strings difficulty. The hominids can not analyze such strings, or process the strings. This shows that holistic approach did not lead to evolution of complex network, and the ancestors did not speak protolanguage (Hauser 2002).
Conclusion
In conclusion the holistic approach is not ideal for development of complex language. This is because the approach has many problems, and some deficiency. The holistic approach does not define the origin of holistic utterances used, and the meaning of strings. The approach assumes that strings have similar meaning, and are made of similar syllable. This is not true because strings and words have different meanings and they are not made of similar syllable. Thus, the holistic approach is not good for development of complex languages. This is because people distort the meaning of words while trying to fix the sentences, and words to have the meaning intended. The assumptions made in holistic model are not valid as shown in the Tallerman paper. The proposal used in the holistic approach has some deficiency. The problems, invalid assumptions, and poor proposal make the holistic approach unfit for development of complex language. The synthetic approach has no deficiencies and is good for development of complex language. Many people have criticized the holistic approach because of the assumptions, and deficiency. They argue that the approach is not fit for development of complex language. This is because it does not define the origin of meaning and the utterances used. This shows that the holistic model did not contribute to the evolution of complex languages.
Reference
Arbib, A. The evolving mirror system: a neural basis for language readiness. In: Christiansen, M.H., Kirby, S. (Eds.), page 182–200, 2003
Arbib, A. An action-oriented neurolinguistic framework for the evolution of protolanguage. In: Tallerman, M. (Ed.), page 21–47, 2005
Bickerton, D. How protolanguage became language. In: Knight, C., et al. (Eds.). Page 264–284, 2000
Burling, R. Comprehension, production and conventionalisation in the origins of language. In: Knight, C., et al. (Eds.). Page 27–39, 2000.
Calvin, H., &Bickerton, D. Lingua ex Machina: Reconciling Darwin and Chomsky with the Human Brain. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2000
Carstairs-McCarthy, A.The evolutionary origin of morphology. In: Tallerman, M. (Ed.). Page 166–184, 2005.
Christiansen,H., &Kirby, S. (Eds.).Language Evolution.OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford, 2003
Fitch, T., Hauser, M., &Chomsky, N. The evolution of the language faculty: Clarifications and implications. Elsivier, Cognition 97, page 179-210.2005.
Fitch, T., &Hauser, M. Computational Constraints on Syntactic Processing in a Nonhuman Primate. Science, page 303, 377. 2004
Hauser, M., et al .The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve?. Science 298, 1569.2002
Is this your assignment or some part of it?
We can do it for you! Click to Order!
