Introduction
Language evolution remains a hotly debated, yet somewhat controversial topic, due to our limited ability to experimentally investigate it and observe it in nature. While some researchers contend that modern-like language emerged in a single leap from a “languageless” state (Berwick, ; Chomsky, ; Berwick et al., ; Nóbrega and Miyagawa, ; Berwick and Chomsky, , ; Chomsky et al., ; Tattersall, 2019; Reboul, 2021), others believe language evolution followed a more gradual path (Bickerton, , , ; Arbib, ; Hurford, , ; Krause et al., ; Knight, ; Casielles and Progovac, ; Dediu and Levinson, , , ; McMahon and McMahon, ; Collier et al., ; Janković and Šojer, ; Tallerman, 2014, 2016; Lieberman, ; Everett, ; Planer, ; Gabrić et al., , ; Michlich, ; Gabrić, , ,; Progovac, 2019; Barham and Everett, ; Botha, ; Lameira and Call, ; Mounier et al., ; Neto, ). Several scholars from the latter school of thought have proposed that there was a two-word stage in the course of language evolution, in which utterances could not combine more than two words (Jackendoff, ; Gil, , ; Hurford, , p. 585ff.; Jackendoff and Wittenberg, ; Progovac, 2015, 2016; Benítez-Burraco and Progovac, ). These models agree that the putative two-word stage did not exhibit syntax. However, they disagree on whether or not there existed rules for inferring the semantic relationship between the two words expressing a compositional proposition. Focusing on semantically transitive events, I combine in the present paper language evolution models with previous empirical studies in linguistics to argue that the two-word stage was indeed governed by rules for inferring the compositional meaning of the utterance, in that (1) words were either associated with fixed (“predetermined”) semantic roles (i.e., agent, patient, predicate) or (2) there was a fixed order1 of semantic roles and the same words could be assigned different semantic roles in different utterances. Given the proposed existence of rules for producing and interpreting semantically compositional messages, it would appear that the putative two-word stage of language evolution did in fact exhibit syntax.
One Word, Two Words…
Several accounts of language evolution have suggested that the first utterances had to be composed of only one word. Utterances comprised of a single denotative unit are found in wild non-human animals where they most often relate to vocalizations denoting predators and potentially intrusive species, as well as different food types (Struhsaker, 1967; Seyfarth et al., 1980; Karakashian et al., ; Cheney and Seyfarth, ; Evans et al., ; Uhlenbroek, 1996; Zuberbühler et al., 1999; Seddon et al., 2002; Crockford and Boesch, ; Brumm et al., ; Digweed et al., ; Slocombe and Zuberbühler, 2005; Egnor et al., ; Clay and Zuberbühler, ; Suzuki, 2012, 2016, 2019, 2020; Fischer, ; Snowdon, 2020). On the other hand, compositional utterances have only seldomly been documented in wild animals (Arnold and Zuberbühler, , , ; Ouattara et al., ,; Schlenker et al., 2016; Suzuki et al., 2017; Kuhn et al., ; Suzuki and Zuberbühler, 2019; Suzuki, 2021) and their status is disputed by some researchers, suggesting that the mere concatenation of (two) words to express a semantically compositional meaning may have been a paramount step in language evolution. Indeed, the currently undisputed (or little disputed) data on semantic compositionality in wild animals appear to be limited to cumulatively conjunctive meanings (i.e., “and”-meanings) (Boesch, ; Suzuki et al., 2016; Gabrić, ). In other words, meaningful units constituting putatively compositional messages in wild animals are, according to current data, not assigned semantic roles similar to those in modern languages. Interestingly, all of the observed putatively compositional expressions in wild animal communication are limited to combinations of two units (“words”).
Gil () and Progovac (2015, 2016), among others, have proposed that in the putative two-word stage, the semantic roles of the different words in a given utterance could not be readily inferred by the receiver, as per the lack of rules for understanding the compositionality of two-word utterances. Both Gil and Progovac use examples of semantically transitive events to make their point. Gil writes that in the Riau Indonesian sentence Ayam makan. “chicken eat,” it is not clear whether ayam “chicken” is the agent (the eater) or patient (the eaten)2. Similarly, following Minimalism, Progovac (2016) exemplifies this problem with the sentence Deer eat. Gil () goes on to say that the receiver infers the compositional meaning of Ayam makan. via the so-called association operator which derives the general compositional meaning ENTITY ASSOCIATED WITH MEANING A AND MEANING B. Thus, both Gil and Progovac suppose that there were neither syntactic nor semantic rules for understanding two-word utterances but that, presumably, pragmatic processing was crucial in the early stages of language evolution.
Rule 1: Words Associated With Fixed Semantic Roles
Let us stop and try to envisage a two-word stage of language evolution. Naturally, sentences (even two-word sentences) are semantically compositional, indicating the existence of at least some rule for coding and decoding the compositional message. In other words, the two words comprising a two-word sentence should each be associated with a specific semantic role. Intuitively, we can imagine either a language with a fixed order of the semantic roles assigned to the two words constituting the utterance (according to some rule) or a language with a free order of the semantic roles. In any case, the two words have to be in some semantic relationship and, in the case of semantically transitive scenarios, the words should express a particular semantic role in a given utterance such as agent, patient, predicate, etc. If the order of the semantic roles was free in such a language, this would mean (1) that in ~50% of the situations, the speakers would use this or that order for the same combination of words but (2) that the receivers would still understand the utterances in ~100% of the situations. If this is true, then the words could only be used with a fixed (“predetermined”) semantic role. In other words, a word such as elephant would be stored in the mental lexicon with a specified semantic role (agent or patient), alongside the word's phonological form and semantic content. A combination of two words such as elephant and kill could only convey either the proposition ELEPHANT KILL or ELEPHANT (BEING) KILLED, independently of whether the ELEPHANT-denoting word preceded or followed the KILL-denoting word. Otherwise, and in the absence of relevant situational stimuli (i.e., actually perceiving the elephant- and killing-related event), the receiver could never understand the compositional meaning (i.e., who did what to whom), despite understanding the individual words.
How plausible is it that words were associated with fixed semantic roles in the early stages of language evolution? Previous discussions on language evolution have already proposed that the earliest words must have had object-like and action-like meanings (somewhat corresponding to the morphosyntactic categories of protonouns and protoverbs) (Heine and Kuteva, ). This would suggest that there was at least one semantic type of words (action words) that would be associated with the semantic role of predicate. Furthermore, experimental studies have shown that nouns denoting animate concepts are more likely to express agents than patients in a given sentence, as well as that nouns denoting animate concepts in a sentential context are more likely to be interpreted by the receiver as an agent than a patient (Ferreira and Clifton, ; Garnsey et al., ; McRae et al., ). Still, these studies merely suggest that the semantic feature of animacy is associated with specific semantic roles and they do not suggest that specific words are associated with specific semantic roles. The same word may act as both the agent or patient in different sentences, even if the same verb is used, e.g., (cf. McRae et al., , p. 284):
The cop arrested the thief.
The cop arrested by the FBI is innocent.
This might be especially true for words denoting concepts of social relationships (e.g., leader, member, subordinate, etc.), as well as names. It seems unlikely that such words had a fixed semantic role. However, given the relative abstract nature of the semantic content of such words (cf. Brysbaert et al., ), it remains questionable whether such words would have been present already in the two-word stage of language evolution. Nevertheless, the seeming existence of such concepts in wild chimpanzees and bonobos (as indicated by, e.g., the existence of alpha and beta males and other types of social relations in communities) renders this a possibility. There is, however, currently no evidence that such concepts are “lexicalized” in wild chimpanzees and bonobos.
Another possible issue with the proposed Rule 1 is that even though individual words might have been dominantly assigned one specific semantic role across contexts, this might not have been exclusive. In other words, the same words could have been assigned different semantic roles (albeit less frequently compared to the dominant role), with the distribution of the associations between individual words and assigned semantic roles being Zipfian in nature. If this was so, interspeaker variation in assigning semantic roles to individual words would have possibly relatively quickly (perhaps after several generations) led to a state where the same words could have been assigned different semantic roles, depending on the context.
Rule 2: Fixed Order of Semantic Roles
Another possibility for the putative two-word stage of language evolution is that the order of the semantic roles assigned to the two words was somehow fixed. In some form, this has already been argued by Jackendoff and Wittenberg (, pp. 73–75) who proposed, based on an introspective analysis of compounds in English, that there might have been particular schemas founded on some kind of semantic relationship and that the semantic roles entailed in this relationship might have displayed a fixed order. One of their examples is the so-called modification schema in which the linearly first word would stand for the modifier, while the second would stand for the modified (e.g., blackbird = “bird that is black”). However, this and their other assumptions are based on a limited selection of examples of a morphosyntactic phenomenon in a particular language, while Jackendoff and Wittenberg don't pay much attention to the expression of transitive scenarios.
I propose that in an early language expressing semantically transitive events and having a fixed order of the semantic roles involved in semantically transitive events, there was an agent-first rule. There is a wealth of linguistic research suggesting that agents are a highly salient element in propositions in which they appear and that they are in many contexts associated with the first-word position in the sentence (Riesberg et al., 2019). Studies of typological variation of the basic word order have shown that the by far most prevalent word orders are subject-object-verb and subject-verb-object (41.03 and 35.44%3, respectively; Greenberg, ; Dryer, ; cf. Gell-Mann and Ruhlen, ; Kemmerer, ). Although the subject represents a syntactic category, while the agent represents a semantic category, in nominative-accusative languages there is often a convergence of the two, especially in the expression of semantically transitive events. Furthermore, SOV and SVO are the most common word orders in sign languages as well (Kimmelman, ; Napoli and Sutton-Spence, ), including “spontaneously” emerged sign languages such as the Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language (Sandler et al., 2005). There is also a typological prevalence of nominative-accusative compared to ergative-absolutive languages (Nichols, ; Bickel et al., ). This is indeed to be expected because if we assume that the agent is cognitively the most salient component of a transitive event, we should predict that the agent (i.e., subject) is going to be morphologically coded in some neutral form (which is typically the case in nominative-accusative but not ergative-absolutive languages). Even when the subject (not necessarily agent) is not in the nominative case in nominative-accusative languages, such as in dative-nominative constructions in Icelandic and German (Barðdal et al., ), the first constituent may express an experiencer which is arguably the closest semantic role to the agent, e.g.:
(3) Mir gefällt das.
I\DAT like.3sg that.
“I like that.” (lit. Me likes that.)
Further evidence comes from neurophysiological studies demonstrating that the first noun phrase in a given sentence is automatically interpreted as the subject and/or agent via specific neural mechanisms. Bornkessel et al. () conducted an ERP study in which they investigated the reception of dependent object clauses in which the syntactical roles of subject and dative object, i.e., semantic roles of agent and target, were ambiguous until the last word in the sentence whose place was taken by a finite form of the auxiliary verb for building the perfect tense, e.g.,:
(4) … dass Betram Surferinnen gratuliert hat.
“… that Betram congratulated the [female] surfers.”
(5) … dass Betram Surferinnen gratuliert haben.
“… that the [female] surfers congratulated Betram.”
In the type of clauses as in (5), the authors observed in the evoked brain potentials a combination of biphasic negativity after 400 ms and late positivity. No significant amplitudes were observed in the first type of clauses. Thus, the first noun phrase is automatically analyzed as a subject and/or agent until there is a “rule break” (i.e., an unexpected grammatical phenomenon) and the sequence is re-analyzed. Similar results using ERP have been obtained by Bickel et al. () who studied this in Hindi, a language displaying ergativity in some contexts. Agent saliency is observed in non-verbal contexts as well. In a range of studies, it has been shown that during the processing of visual stimuli depicting semantically transitive events, subjects who have prior information about the agent better predict the possible actions compared to subjects who have prior information about the patient, that agents are viewed longer compared to patients independently of the order of presentation, and that visual depictions of events are processed faster after agent presentation compared to patient presentation (Cohn and Paczynski, ; Cohn et al., ).
Discussion
In conclusion, I disagree with Gil's () and Progovac's (2015, 2016) proposals that the semantic roles of the two words constituting sentences in the putative two-word stage of language evolution were ambiguous to the receiver. I have proposed based on introspection and published empirical data two possibilities how agents and patients might have been inferred from two-word utterances expressing transitive events. Future research could investigate the degrees of modern humans' sensitivity to variations in the order of semantic roles during learning or creating artificial languages.
Nevertheless, there are important limitations to this opinion paper as well. Firstly, as pointed out by the reviewer, the communication between speakers need not have ended after the two-word sentence had been produced. The same speaker may have continued producing one- or two-word utterances (as per the definition of the two-word stage), thus opening up the possibility that semantically transitive events were coded using multiple sentences and not only a single two-word sentence. This is especially interesting given that semantically transitive events by their nature involve at least three phenomena: the agent, patient, and action. Future discussions on language evolution should consider this possibility. Secondly, although the processing of semantically transitive meanings has been found to be embodied in the sensorimotor system (Glenberg and Kaschak, ; Hauk et al., ; Tettamanti et al., 2005; Aziz-Zadeh et al., ; Desai et al., ; Kemmerer, ; Scorolli et al., 2012; Ghio and Tettamanti, ; Grisoni et al., ; Mollo et al., ; van Dam and Desai, 2016; Progovac et al., 2018), arguably suggesting the reuse of phylogenetically relatively ancient processing systems, it is by no means straightforward that the first two-word utterances expressed transitive propositions. In fact, and as already discussed by Jackendoff and Wittenberg (), other semantic combinations are imaginable as well, while some are documented in wild non-human animals (e.g., cumulative conjunction). Nevertheless, the proposed linguistic universality of some aspects of both semantic and syntactic transitivity (Creissels, ) suggests the possibility that the expression of transitive propositions was present in the early stages of language evolution.
Funding
Open Access funding was enabled by the Publications Fund of the University Library of the Philipps University of Marburg. No funds, grants, or other support were received.
Publisher's Note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Statements
Author contributions
The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the reviewer AM for pointing out the possibility for Rule 1 that the predetermined semantic roles might have been in fact the dominant semantic roles for the particular words with other, less frequent, semantic roles exhibiting a Zipfian distribution. I would also like to thank AM for mentioning the social relationship argument against Rule 1, the potential of continued communication after a two-word sentence had been uttered, as well as for pointing out terminological and conceptual issues in the original manuscript. The content of the manuscript has previously appeared online as a preprint (Gabrić, ).
Conflict of interest
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Footnotes
1.^In the present paper, I use the not so widespread term order of semantic roles as opposed to order of syntactic constituents or, more loosely, word order. Typically, (basic) word order refers to the order of syntactic constituents (e.g., subject, object, predicate, etc.), independently of which semantic roles have been assigned to the words/phrases realized as particular syntactic constituents (Newmeyer, ). It is important to note that particular semantic roles do not have to correspond to particular syntactic constituents, even though there is not seldomly a convergence of some, e.g., of the subject and agent (e.g., Chan et al., ; Shimada et al., 2020; Ünal et al., 2021).
2.^A year ago I asked an Indonesian waiter in a restaurant in Cologne what Ayam makan. means and he replied Chicken eats. A similar experience is reported by Hurford (, p. 406).
3.^When languages with no apparent basic word order (13.73%) are counted as well.
References
1
ArbibM. A. (2005). From monkey-like action recognition to human language: an evolutionary framework for neurolinguistics. Behav. Brain Sci. 28, 105–167. 10.1017/S0140525X05000038
2
ArnoldK.ZuberbühlerK. (2006). Semantic combinations in primate calls. Nature441:303. 10.1038/441303a
3
ArnoldK.ZuberbühlerK. (2008). Meaningful call combinations in a non-human primate. Curr. Biol. 18, R202–R203. 10.1016/j.cub.2008.01.040
4
ArnoldK.ZuberbühlerK. (2012). Call combinations in monkeys: compositional or idiomatic expressions?Brain Lang. 120, 303–309. 10.1016/j.bandl.2011.10.001
5
Aziz-ZadehI.WilsonS. M.RizzolattiG.IacoboniM. (2006). Congruent embodied representations for visually represented actions and linguistic phrases describing actions. Curr. Biol. 16, 1818–1823. 10.1016/j.cub.2006.07.060
6
BarðdalJ.EyþórssonT.DeweyT. K. (2014). Alternating predicates in Icelandic and German: a sign-based construction grammar account. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 93, 51–101. Available online at: https://projekt.ht.lu.se/fileadmin/_migrated/content_uploads/Johanna.pdf (accessed July 14, 2021).
7
BarhamL.EverettD. (2020). Semiotics and the origin of language in the Lower Palaeolithic. J. Archaeol. Method Theory28, 535–579. 10.1007/s10816-020-09480-9
8
Benítez-BurracoA.ProgovacL. (2020). A four-stage model for language evolution under the effects of human self-domestication. Lang. Commun. 73, 1–17. 10.1016/j.langcom.2020.03.002
9
BerwickR. C. (1998). Language evolution and the Minimalist Program: the origins of syntax, in Approaches to the Evolution of Language: Social and Cognitive Bases, eds HurfordJ. R.Studdert-KennedyM.KnightC. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 320–340.
10
BerwickR. C.ChomskyN. (2016). Why Only Us: Language and Evolution. Cambridge/London: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262034241.001.0001
11
BerwickR. C.ChomskyN. (2019). All or nothing: no half-Merge and the evolution of syntax. PLOS Biol. 17:e3000539. 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000539
12
BerwickR. C.HauserM. D.TattersallI. (2013). Neanderthal language? Just-so stories take center stage. Front. Psychol. 4:671. 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00671
13
BickelB.Witzlack-MakarevichA.ChoudharyK. K.SchlesewskyM.Bornkessel- SchlesewskyI. (2015). The neurophysiology of language processing shapes the evolution of grammar: evidence from case marking. PLoS ONE10:e0132819. 10.1371/journal.pone.0132819
14
BickertonD. (1990). Language and Species. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226220949.001.0001
15
BickertonD. (2000). “How protolanguage became language”, in The Evolutionary Emergence of Language: Social Function and the Origins of Linguistic Form, eds KnightC.Studdert-KennedyM.HurfordJ. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 264–284. 10.1017/cbo9780511606441.017
16
BickertonD. (2007). Language evolution: a brief guide for linguists. Lingua117, 510–526. 10.1016/j.lingua.2005.02.006
17
BoeschC. (1991). Symbolic communication in wild chimpanzees?Hum. Evol. 6, 81–89. 10.1007/BF02435610
18
BornkesselI.McElreeB.SchlesewskyM.FriedericiA. D. (2004). Multi-dimensional contributions to garden path strength: dissociating phrase structure from case marking. J. Mem. Lang. 51, 495–522. 10.1016/j.jml.2004.06.011
19
BothaR. (2020). Neanderthal Language: Demystifying the Linguistic Powers of our Extinct Cousins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108868167
20
BrummH.KipperS.RiechelmannC.TodtD. (2005). Do Barbary macaques ‘comment’ on what they see? A first report on vocalizations accompanying interactions of third parties. Primates46, 141–144. 10.1007/s10329-004-0107-7
21
BrysbaertM.WarrinerA. B.KupermanV. (2014). Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behav. Res. Methods46, 904–911. 10.3758/s13428-013-0403-5
22
CasiellesE.ProgovacL. (2012). Protosyntax: a thetic (unaccusative) stage?Theoria et Historia Scientiarum9, 29–48. 10.12775/v10235-011-0003-4
23
ChanA.LievenE.TomaselloM. (2009). Children's understanding of the agent-patient relations in the transitive construction: cross-linguistic comparisons between Cantonese, German, and English. Cogn. Linguist. 20, 267–300. 10.1515/COGL.2009.015
24
CheneyD.SeyfarthR. (1990). How Monkeys See the World: Inside the Mind of Another Species. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226218526.001.0001
25
ChomskyN. (2002). On Nature and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511613876
26
ChomskyN.GallegoÁ. J.OttD. (2019). Generative grammar and the Faculty of Language: insights, questions, and challenges. Catalan J. Linguist. 2019, 229–261. 10.5565/rev/catjl.288
27
ClayZ.ZuberbühlerK. (2009). Food-associated calling sequences in bonobos. Anim. Behav. 77, 1387–1396. 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.02.016
28
CohnN.PaczynskiM. (2013). Prediction, events, and the advantage of Agents: the processing of semantic roles in visual narrative. Cogn. Psychol. 67, 73–97. 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2013.07.002
29
CohnN.PaczynskiM.KutasM. (2017). Not so secret agents: event-related potentials to semantic roles in visual event comprehension. Brain Cogn. 119, 1–9. 10.1016/j.bandc.2017.09.001
30
CollierK.BickelB.van SchaikC. P.ManserM. B.TownsendS. W. (2014). Language evolution: syntax before phonology?Proc. R. Soc. B281:20140263. 10.1098/rspb.2014.0263
31
CreisselsD. (2016). Transitivity, valency, and voice [Paper presentation]. European Summer School in Linguistic Typology, Porquerolles, France. Available online at: http://www.deniscreissels.fr/public/Creissels-ESSLT.pdf (accessed July 14, 2021).
32
CrockfordC.BoeschC. (2003). Context-specific calls in wild chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes verus: analysis of barks. Anim. Behav. 66, 115–125. 10.1006/anbe.2003.2166
33
DediuD.LevinsonS. C. (2013). On the antiquity of language: the reinterpretation of Neandertal linguistic capacities and its consequences. Front. Psychol. 4:397. 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00397
34
DediuD.LevinsonS. C. (2014). “The time frame of the emergence of modern language and its implications”, in The Social Origins of Language, eds DorD.KnightC.LewisJ. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press), 184–195. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665327.003.0014
35
DediuD.LevinsonS. C. (2018). Neanderthal language revisited: not only us. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 21, 49–55. 10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.01.001
36
DesaiR. H.ConantL. L.BinderJ. R.ParkH.SeidenbergM. S. (2010). Activation of sensory–motor areas in sentence comprehension. Cereb. Cortex20, 468–478. 10.1093/cercor/bhp115
37
DigweedS. M.FediganL. M.RendallD. (2005). Variable specificity in the antipredator vocalizations and behaviour of the white-faced capuchin, Cebus capucinus. Behaviour142, 997–1021. 10.1163/156853905774405344
38
DryerM. S. (2005). “Order of subject, object, and verb”, in The World Atlas of Language Structures, eds HaspelmathM.DryerM. S.GilD.ComrieB. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press), 330–333.
39
EgnorS. E. R.MillerC.HauserM. D. (2006). “Nonhuman primate communication”, in Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, ed BrownK. (Amsterdam: Elsevier), 659–668. 10.1016/b0-08-044854-2/00835-x
40
EvansC. S.EvansL.MarlerP. (1993). On the meaning of alarm calls: functional reference in an avian vocal system. Anim. Behav. 46, 23–38. 10.1006/anbe.1993.1158
41
EverettD. L. (2016). How Language Began: The Story of Humanity's Greatest Invention. New York/London: Liveright.
42
FerreiraF.CliftonC.Jr. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. J. Mem. Lang. 25, 348–368. 10.1016/0749-596X(86)90006-9
43
FischerJ. (2020). Nonhuman primate alarm calls then and now. Anim. Behav. Cogn. 7, 108–116. 10.26451/abc.07.02.05.2020
44
GabrićP. (2019). Evolucija sintakse i semantike iz psiholingvističke i neurolingvističke perspektive (Master's thesis). University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia. 10.31237/osf.io/3ap9u
45
GabrićP. (2021a). Evolution of Syntax and Semantics From Psycholinguistic and Neurolinguistic Perspectives (Master's thesis [English translation]). University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia. 10.31234/osf.io/e9w4u
46
GabrićP. (2021b). Book review: Neanderthal Language: Demystifying the Linguistic Powers of Our Extinct Cousins. Front. Psychol. 12:702361. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.702361
47
GabrićP. (2021c). Overlooked evidence for semantic compositionality and signal reduction in wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). PsyArXiv [Preprint]. 10.31234/osf.io/kgqy9
48
GabrićP. (2021d). Differentiation between agents and patients in the putative two-word stage of language evolution. PsyArXiv [Preprint]. 10.31234/osf.io/8p3n2
49
GabrićP.BandaM.KaravanićI. (2018). “Palaeolithic toolmaking and the evolution of cognition and language”, in Cognitive Science, eds StrleT.MarkičO. (Ljubljana: Institut “Jožef Stefan”), 12–16. 10.5281/zenodo.4674332
50
GabrićP.BandaM.KaravanićI. (2021). Cognitive performance and specific aspects of language processing are associated with Oldowan-like chert flaking and retouch. PsyArXiv [Preprint]. 10.31234/osf.io/p9vyj
51
GarnseyS. M.PearlmutterN. J.MyersE.LotockyM. A. (1997). The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. J. Mem. Lang. 37, 58–93. 10.1006/jmla.1997.2512
52
Gell-MannM.RuhlenM. (2011). The origin and evolution of word order. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108, 17290–17295. 10.1073/pnas.1113716108
53
GhioM.TettamantiM. (2016). “Grounding sentence processing in the sensory-motor system”, in Neurobiology of Language, eds HickokG.SmallS. L. (Amsterdam: Academic Press), 647–657. 10.1016/B978-0-12-407794-2.00052-3
54
GilD. (2008). “How much grammar does it take to sail a boat? (Or, what can material artefacts tell us about the evolution of language?)”, in The Evolution of Language: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference (EVOLANG7), eds SmithA. D. M.SmithK.CanchoR. F. I. (Hackensack, New Jersey [etc.]: World Scientific), 123–130. 10.1142/9789812776129_0016
55
GilD. (2009). “How much grammar does it take to sail a boat?”, in Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable, eds SampsonG.GilD.TurdgillP. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 19–33.
56
GlenbergA. M.KaschakM. P. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 9, 558–565. 10.3758/BF03196313
57
GreenbergJ. H. (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements, in Universals of Language, ed GreenbergJ. H. (Cambridge: MIT Press), 73–113. Available online at: http://www.fb10.uni-bremen.de/homepages/hackmack/syntax/pdf/Universals_of_Language.pdf (accessed July 14, 2021).
58
GrisoniL.DreyerF. R.PulvermüllerF. (2016). Somatotopic semantic priming and prediction in the motor system. Cereb. Cortex26, 2353–2366. 10.1093/cercor/bhw026
59
HaukO.JohnsrudeI.PulvermüllerF. (2004). Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron41, 301–307. 10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00838-9
60
HeineB.KutevaT. (2007). The Genesis of Grammar: A Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
61
HurfordJ. R. (2007). The Origins of Meaning: Language in the Light of Evolution. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
62
HurfordJ. R. (2012). The Origins of Grammar: Language in the Light of Evolution II. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
63
JackendoffR. (1999). Possible stages in the evolution of the language capacity. Trends Cogn. Sci. 3, 272–279. 10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01333-9
64
JackendoffR.WittenbergE. (2014). “What you can say without syntax: a hierarchy of grammatical complexity”, in Measuring Grammatical Complexity, eds NewmeyerF. J.PrestonL. B. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 65–82. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199685301.003.0004
65
JankovićI.ŠojerT. (2014). The evolution of speech and language. Opvscvla Archaeol. 37/38, 11–48. 10.17234/OA.37.1
66
KarakashianS. J.GygerM.MarlerP. (1988). Audience effects on alarm calling in chickens (Gallus gallus). J. Comp. Psychol. 102, 129–135. 10.1037/0735-7036.102.2.129
67
KemmererD. (2012). The cross-linguistic prevalence of SOV and SVO word order reflects the sequential and hierarchical representation of action in Broca's area. Lang. Linguist. Compass. 6, 50–66. 10.1002/lnc3.322
68
KimmelmanV. (2012). Word order in Russian sign language. Sign. Lang. Stud. 12, 414–445. 10.1353/sls.2012.0001
69
KnightC. (2009). “Introduction: perspectives on the evolution of language in Africa”, in The Cradle of Language, eds BothaR.KnightC. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press), 1–15.
70
KrauseJ.Lalueza-FoxC.OrlandoL.EnardW.GreenR. E.BurbanoH. A.et al. (2007). The derived FOXP2 variant of modern humans was shared with Neandertals. Curr. Biol. 17, 1908–1912. 10.1016/j.cub.2007.10.008
71
KuhnJ.KeenanS.ArnoldK.LemassonA. (2018). On the -oo suffix of Campbell's monkeys. Linguist. Inq. 49, 169–181. 10.1162/LING_a_00270
72
LameiraA. R.CallJ. (2020). Understanding language evolution: beyond Pan-centrism. Bioessays42:1900102. 10.1002/bies.201900102
73
LiebermanP. (2015). Language did not spring forth 100,000 years ago. PLoS Biol. 13:e1002064. 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002064
74
McMahonA.McMahonR. (2013). Evolutionary Linguistics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511989391
75
McRaeK.Spivey-KnowltonM. J.TanenhausM. K. (1998). Modeling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in on-line sentence comprehension. J. Mem. Lang. 38, 283–312. 10.1006/jmla.1997.2543
76
MichlichJ. (2018). An analysis of semiotic and mimetic processes in Australopithecus afarensis. Public J. Semiot. 8, 1–12. 10.37693/pjos.2018.8.18694
77
MolloG.PulvermüllerF.HaukO. (2016). Movement priming of EEG/MEG brain responses for action-words characterizes the link between language and action. Cortex74, 262–276. 10.1016/j.cortex.2015.10.021
78
MounierA.NoûsC.BalzeauA. (2020). Palaeoneurology and the emergence of language. Bull. Mem. Soc. Anthropol. Paris32, 147–157. 10.3166/bmsap-2020-0098
79
NapoliD. J.Sutton-SpenceR. (2014). Order of the major constituents in sign languages: implications for all language. Front. Psychol. 5:375. 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00376
80
NetoJ. M. (2020). The birth and evolution of symbolic information. Proceedings47:19. 10.3390/proceedings2020047019
81
NewmeyerF. J. (2003). “‘Basic word order' in formal and functional linguistics and the typological status of ‘canonical’ sentence types”, in Contrastive Analysis in Language: Identifying Linguistic Units of Comparison, eds WillemsD.DefrancqB.CollemanT.NoëlD. (Hampshire/New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan), 69–88. 10.1057/9780230524637_4
82
NicholsJ. (1993). Ergativity and linguistic geography. Aust. J. Linguist. 13, 39–89. 10.1080/07268609308599489
83
NóbregaV. A.MiyagawaS. (2015). The precedence of syntax in the rapid emergence of human language in evolution as defined by the integration hypothesis. Front. Psychol. 6:271. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00271
84
OuattaraK.LemassonA.ZuberbühlerK. (2009a). Campbell's monkeys concatenate vocalizations into context-specific call sequences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 22026–22031. 10.1073/pnas.0908118106
85
OuattaraK.LemassonA.ZuberbühlerK. (2009b). Campbell's monkeys use affixation to alter call meaning. PLoS ONE4:e7808. 10.1371/journal.pone.0007808
86
PlanerR. J. (2017). How language couldn't have evolved: a critical examination of Berwick and Chomsky's theory of language evolution. Biol. Philos. 32, 779–796. 10.1007/s10539-017-9606-y
87
ProgovacL. (2015). Evolutionary Syntax. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198736547.001.0001
88
ProgovacL. (2016). A gradualist scenario for language evolution: precise linguistic reconstruction of early human (and Neandertal) grammars. Front. Psychol. 7:1714. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01714
89
ProgovacL. (2019). A Critical Introduction to Language Evolution: Current Controversies and Future Prospects. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978-3-030-03235-7
90
ProgovacL.RakhlinN.AngellW.LiddaneR.TangL.OfenN. (2018). Diversity of grammars and their diverging evolutionary and processing paths: evidence from functional MRI study of Serbian. Front. Psychol. 9:278. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00278
91
ReboulA. (2021). “Chomsky on the evolution of the language faculty: presentation and perspectives for further research”, in A Companion to Chomsky, eds AllottN.LohndalT.ReyG. (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell), 476–487. 10.1002/9781119598732.ch30
92
RiesbergS.MalcherK.HimmelmannN. P. (2019). How universal is agent-first? Evidence from symmetrical voice languages. Language95, 523–561. 10.1353/lan.2019.0055
93
SandlerW.PaddenP.AronoffM. (2005). The emergence of grammar: systematic structure in a new language. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102, 2661–2665. 10.1073/pnas.0405448102
94
SchlenkerP.ChemlaE.ArnoldK.ZuberbühlerK. (2016). Pyow-hack revisited: two analyses of Putty-nosed monkey alarm calls. Lingua171, 1–23. 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.10.002
95
ScorolliC.JacquetP. O.BinkofskiF.NicolettiR.TessariA.BorghiA. M. (2012). Abstract and concrete phrases processing differentially modulates cortico-spinal excitability. Brain Res. 1488, 60–70. 10.1016/j.brainres.2012.10.004
96
SeddonN.TobiasJ. A.AlvarezA. (2002). Vocal communication in the pale-winged trumpeter (Psophia leucoptera): repertoire, context, and functional reference. Behaviour139, 1331–1359. 10.1163/156853902321104190
97
SeyfarthR. M.CheneyD. L.MarlerP. (1980). Monkey responses to three different alarm calls: evidence of predator classification and semantic communication. Science210, 801–803. 10.1126/science.7433999
98
ShimadaH.MasakiY.OkadaR.OhbaA.IkedaK.YamakoshiK. (2020). The agent-first strategy and word order: children's comprehension of right dislocations and clefts in Japanese, in Proceedings of the 44th Boston University Conference on Language Development, eds BrownM. M.KohutA. (Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press), 586–595. Available online at: http://www.lingref.com/bucld/44/BUCLD44-47.pdf (accessed July 14, 2021).
99
SlocombeK. E.ZuberbühlerK. (2005). Functionally referential communication in a chimpanzee. Curr. Biol. 15, 1779–1784. 10.1016/j.cub.2005.08.068
100
SnowdonC. T. (2020). Vervet monkey alarm calls: setting the historical context. Anim. Behav. Cogn. 7, 87–94. 10.26451/abc.07.02.02.2020
101
StruhsakerT. T. (1967). “Auditory communication among vervet monkeys (Cercopithecus aethiops)”, in Social Communication Among Primates, ed AltmannS. A. (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), 281–324.
102
SuzukiT. N. (2012). Referential mobbing calls elicit different predator-searching behaviours in Japanese great tits. Anim. Behav. 84, 53–57. 10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.03.030
103
SuzukiT. N. (2016). Semantic communication in birds: evidence from field research over the past two decades. Ecol. Res. 31, 307–319. 10.1007/s11284-016-1339-x
104
SuzukiT. N. (2019). Imagery in wild birds: retrieval of visual information from referential alarm calls. Learn. Behav. 47, 111–114. 10.3758/s13420-019-00374-9
105
SuzukiT. N. (2020). Other species' alarm calls evoke a predator-specific search image in birds. Curr. Biol. 30, 2616–2620.e2. 10.1016/j.cub.2020.04.062
106
SuzukiT. N. (2021). Animal linguistics: exploring referentiality and compositionality in bird calls. Ecol. Res. 36, 221–231. 10.1111/1440-1703.12200
107
SuzukiT. N.WheatcroftD.GriesserM. (2016). Experimental evidence for compositional syntax in bird calls. Nat. Commun. 7:10986. 10.1038/ncomms10986
108
SuzukiT. N.WheatcroftD.GriesserM. (2017). Wild birds use an ordering rule to decode novel call sequences. Curr. Biol. 27, 2331–2336.e3. 10.1016/j.cub.2017.06.031
109
SuzukiT. N.ZuberbühlerK. (2019). Animal syntax. Curr. Biol. 29, R669–R671. 10.1016/j.cub.2019.05.045
110
TallermanM. (2014). No syntax saltation in language evolution. Lang. Sci. 46, 207–219. 10.1016/j.langsci.2014.08.002
111
TallermanM. (2016). Against the emergent view of language evolution, in The Evolution of Language: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference (EVOLANG11), eds RobertsS. G.CuskleyC.McCrohonL.Barceló-CoblijnL.FehérO.VerhoefT.. Available online at: http://evolang.org/neworleans/papers/6.html (accessed July 14, 2021).
112
TattersallI. (2019). The Minimalist Program and the origin of language: a view from paleoanthropology. Front. Psychol. 10:677. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00677
113
TettamantiM.BuccinoG.SaccumanM. C.GalleseV.DannaM.ScifoP.et al. (2005). Listening to action-related sentences activates fronto-parietal motor circuits. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 17, 273–281. 10.1162/0898929053124965
114
UhlenbroekC. (1996). Structure and Function of the Long-Distance Calls Given by Male Chimpanzees in Gombe National Park (Ph.D. thesis). University of Bristol, Bristol United Kingdom. Available online at: http://hdl.handle.net/10068/606630 (accessed July 14, 2021).
115
ÜnalE.RichardsC.TrueswellJ. C.PapafragouA. (2021). Representing agents, patients, goals and instruments in causative events: a cross-linguistic investigation of early language and cognition. Dev. Sci. 10.1111/desc.13116. [Epub ahead of print].
116
van DamW. O.DesaiR. H. (2016). The semantics of syntax: the grounding of transitive and intransitive constructions. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 28, 693–709. 10.1162/jocn_a_00926
117
ZuberbühlerK.CheneyD. L.SeyfarthR. M. (1999). Conceptual semantics in a nonhuman primate. J. Comp. Psychol. 113, 33–42. 10.1037/0735-7036.113.1.33
Summary
Keywords
language evolution, semantic role, transitivity, cognitive evolution, semantic compositionality, word order, human evolution
Citation
Gabrić P (2021) Differentiation Between Agents and Patients in the Putative Two-Word Stage of Language Evolution. Front. Psychol. 12:684022. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.684022
Received
22 March 2021
Accepted
19 July 2021
Published
11 August 2021
Volume
12 - 2021
Edited by
Weiyi Ma, University of Arkansas, United States
Reviewed by
Alexander Mehler, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany
Updates
Copyright
© 2021 Gabrić.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Petar Gabrić petar.gabric@uni-marburg.de
This article was submitted to Language Sciences, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.