Christiansen & Chater (C&C) promise to provide “an integrated framework for explaining many aspects of language structure, acquisition, processing, and evolution that have previously been treated separately” (sect. 1, para. 5). This integration results in a plausible language acquisition model. Citing a wealth of compelling empirical evidence, C&C propose that language is learned like other skills and that linguistic abilities are not isolated biological traits, as suggested by Hauser et al. (Reference Hauser, Yang, Berwick, Tattersall, Ryan, Watumull, Chomsky and Lewontin2014), but continuous with other motor and cognitive skills. Rejecting the Chomskyan dogma that language learning is effortless and (virtually) instantaneous (Chomsky Reference Chomsky1975; Reference Chomsky and Piattelli-Palmerini1980; Reference Chomsky1986; Reference Chomsky2012), C&C propose that “the Now-or-Never bottleneck requires that language acquisition be viewed as a type of skill learning, such as learning to drive, juggle, play the violin, or play chess. Such skills appear to be learned through practicing the skill, using online feedback during the practice itself …” (sect. 4, para. 4). This view integrates language naturally within cognition and does not require the postulation of domain-specific cognitive modules. Additionally, C&C's account casts doubt on Chomsky's claim that the fact that we frequently talk silently to ourselves supports his view that the function of language is not communication (e.g., Chomsky Reference Chomsky2000; Reference Chomsky2002; Reference Chomsky2012). A more parsimonious explanation would assume that frequent internal monologues arose from the habitual “practice” (fine-tuning by [silently] doing) of language learning. C&C argue that “we should expect the exploitation of memory to require ‘replaying’ learned material, so that it can be reprocessed” (sect. 4.1, para. 5). They cite substantial neuroscientific evidence that such replay occurs and propose that dreaming may have a related function. Given that especially the integration of available information across different types and levels of abstraction and the anticipation of responses might require more practice than the motor-execution of (audible) speech, silent self-conversation might initially provide an additional medium for language learning. Later in life, such internal monologue could be recruited to the function Chomsky envisioned. Future research could uncover at what age children begin using internal monologue, to what degree second-language acquisition is assisted by learners switching their internal monologue from L1 to L2, and whether the lack of internal monologue (e.g., Grandin Reference Grandin2005) has negative effects on fluency in production.
Although C&C's account offers an attractive language acquisition model, it seems to create a paradox for language evolution. C&C argue that there are strong pressures toward simplification and reduction. For example, when a very simple artificial toy language was simulated, it “collapsed into just a few different forms that allowed for systematic, albeit semantically underspecified, generalization … In natural language, however, the pressure toward reduction is normally kept in balance by the need to maintain effective communication” (sect. 5, para. 4). This observation raises the following problem: For an existing, fairly complex system, simplification may indeed lead to the kinds of changes C&C discuss (e.g., that “chunks at each level of linguistic structure – discourse, syntax, morphology, and phonology – are potentially subject to reduction” [sect. 5, para. 5]). But in this view there is a strong pressure toward simplification and virtually no possibility of increasing complexity. Yet it is not clear why the language of our distant ancestors would have been more complex than or at least as complex as modern languages. It has been argued convincingly that the complexity of grammar actually needed to support most daily activities of humans living in complex contemporary societies is substantially less than that exhibited by any contemporary human language (Gil Reference Gil, Sampson, Gil and Trudgill2009, p. 19), and it seems implausible that existing language complexity is functionally motivated.
If the Now-or-Never bottleneck has the power C&C attribute to it, it must have constrained language learning and use for our distant ancestors in the same way as it does for us. Presumably these ancestors had cognitive capacities that were not superior to ours, and their culture would have imposed even fewer demands for linguistic complexity than contemporary culture. So how could they have evolved a highly complex language system that in turn could be reduced to provide the cognitive foundation for grammaticalization? C&C suggest analogies between language and other cognitive processes (e.g., vision). This is problematic because the visual system evolved to perceive objects that exist independently of this system. On purely naturalist accounts, languages have no existence independent of human brains or human culture. Therefore, both the cognitive abilities underwriting linguistic competence and the language that is learned must have evolved. Decades ago it was suggested that many of the problems that bedevil Chomskyan linguistics can be eliminated if one adopts linguistic Platonism and draws a distinction between the knowledge speakers have of their language and the languages that speakers have knowledge of. Platonism considers as distinct (1) the study of semantic properties and relations like ambiguity, synonymy, meaningfulness, and analyticity, and (2) the study of the neuropsychological brain-states of a person who has acquired knowledge about these semantic properties (e.g., Behme Reference Behme2014a; Katz Reference Katz, Bever, Carroll and Miller1984; Reference Katz1996; Reference Katz1998; Katz & Postal Reference Katz and Postal1991; Neef Reference Neef2014; Postal Reference Postal2003; Reference Postal2009). In such a view, languages and brains that have acquired knowledge of languages are two distinct ontological systems.
In addition to eliminating many problems for contemporary linguistics, such a view also might resolve the language evolution paradox because languages have an independent existence, and only human cognitive capacity evolves. It might be argued that the epistemology of linguistic Platonism is hopeless. Although this is not the place to defend linguistic Platonism, one should remember that in mathematics it is widely accepted that the number systems exist independently of human brains and human culture, and are discovered, just as are other objects of scientific discovery. It has been argued that if one accepts the possibility of mathematical realism, there is no a priori reason to reject the possibility of linguistic realism (e.g., Behme Reference Behme2014b; Katz Reference Katz1998). Before rejecting linguistic Platonism out of hand, one ought to remember that
For psychology, AI, and the related cognitive sciences, the question of what a grammar is a theory of is important because its answer can resolve troublesome issues about where the linguist's work ends and the cognitive scientist's begins. A Platonist answer to this question would clearly divide linguistics and cognitive sciences so that the wasteful and unnecessary quarrels of the past can be put behind us. (Katz Reference Katz, Bever, Carroll and Miller1984, p. 28)
You have
Access
Christiansen & Chater (C&C) promise to provide “an integrated framework for explaining many aspects of language structure, acquisition, processing, and evolution that have previously been treated separately” (sect. 1, para. 5). This integration results in a plausible language acquisition model. Citing a wealth of compelling empirical evidence, C&C propose that language is learned like other skills and that linguistic abilities are not isolated biological traits, as suggested by Hauser et al. (Reference Hauser, Yang, Berwick, Tattersall, Ryan, Watumull, Chomsky and Lewontin2014), but continuous with other motor and cognitive skills. Rejecting the Chomskyan dogma that language learning is effortless and (virtually) instantaneous (Chomsky Reference Chomsky1975; Reference Chomsky and Piattelli-Palmerini1980; Reference Chomsky1986; Reference Chomsky2012), C&C propose that “the Now-or-Never bottleneck requires that language acquisition be viewed as a type of skill learning, such as learning to drive, juggle, play the violin, or play chess. Such skills appear to be learned through practicing the skill, using online feedback during the practice itself …” (sect. 4, para. 4). This view integrates language naturally within cognition and does not require the postulation of domain-specific cognitive modules. Additionally, C&C's account casts doubt on Chomsky's claim that the fact that we frequently talk silently to ourselves supports his view that the function of language is not communication (e.g., Chomsky Reference Chomsky2000; Reference Chomsky2002; Reference Chomsky2012). A more parsimonious explanation would assume that frequent internal monologues arose from the habitual “practice” (fine-tuning by [silently] doing) of language learning. C&C argue that “we should expect the exploitation of memory to require ‘replaying’ learned material, so that it can be reprocessed” (sect. 4.1, para. 5). They cite substantial neuroscientific evidence that such replay occurs and propose that dreaming may have a related function. Given that especially the integration of available information across different types and levels of abstraction and the anticipation of responses might require more practice than the motor-execution of (audible) speech, silent self-conversation might initially provide an additional medium for language learning. Later in life, such internal monologue could be recruited to the function Chomsky envisioned. Future research could uncover at what age children begin using internal monologue, to what degree second-language acquisition is assisted by learners switching their internal monologue from L1 to L2, and whether the lack of internal monologue (e.g., Grandin Reference Grandin2005) has negative effects on fluency in production.
Although C&C's account offers an attractive language acquisition model, it seems to create a paradox for language evolution. C&C argue that there are strong pressures toward simplification and reduction. For example, when a very simple artificial toy language was simulated, it “collapsed into just a few different forms that allowed for systematic, albeit semantically underspecified, generalization … In natural language, however, the pressure toward reduction is normally kept in balance by the need to maintain effective communication” (sect. 5, para. 4). This observation raises the following problem: For an existing, fairly complex system, simplification may indeed lead to the kinds of changes C&C discuss (e.g., that “chunks at each level of linguistic structure – discourse, syntax, morphology, and phonology – are potentially subject to reduction” [sect. 5, para. 5]). But in this view there is a strong pressure toward simplification and virtually no possibility of increasing complexity. Yet it is not clear why the language of our distant ancestors would have been more complex than or at least as complex as modern languages. It has been argued convincingly that the complexity of grammar actually needed to support most daily activities of humans living in complex contemporary societies is substantially less than that exhibited by any contemporary human language (Gil Reference Gil, Sampson, Gil and Trudgill2009, p. 19), and it seems implausible that existing language complexity is functionally motivated.
If the Now-or-Never bottleneck has the power C&C attribute to it, it must have constrained language learning and use for our distant ancestors in the same way as it does for us. Presumably these ancestors had cognitive capacities that were not superior to ours, and their culture would have imposed even fewer demands for linguistic complexity than contemporary culture. So how could they have evolved a highly complex language system that in turn could be reduced to provide the cognitive foundation for grammaticalization? C&C suggest analogies between language and other cognitive processes (e.g., vision). This is problematic because the visual system evolved to perceive objects that exist independently of this system. On purely naturalist accounts, languages have no existence independent of human brains or human culture. Therefore, both the cognitive abilities underwriting linguistic competence and the language that is learned must have evolved. Decades ago it was suggested that many of the problems that bedevil Chomskyan linguistics can be eliminated if one adopts linguistic Platonism and draws a distinction between the knowledge speakers have of their language and the languages that speakers have knowledge of. Platonism considers as distinct (1) the study of semantic properties and relations like ambiguity, synonymy, meaningfulness, and analyticity, and (2) the study of the neuropsychological brain-states of a person who has acquired knowledge about these semantic properties (e.g., Behme Reference Behme2014a; Katz Reference Katz, Bever, Carroll and Miller1984; Reference Katz1996; Reference Katz1998; Katz & Postal Reference Katz and Postal1991; Neef Reference Neef2014; Postal Reference Postal2003; Reference Postal2009). In such a view, languages and brains that have acquired knowledge of languages are two distinct ontological systems.
In addition to eliminating many problems for contemporary linguistics, such a view also might resolve the language evolution paradox because languages have an independent existence, and only human cognitive capacity evolves. It might be argued that the epistemology of linguistic Platonism is hopeless. Although this is not the place to defend linguistic Platonism, one should remember that in mathematics it is widely accepted that the number systems exist independently of human brains and human culture, and are discovered, just as are other objects of scientific discovery. It has been argued that if one accepts the possibility of mathematical realism, there is no a priori reason to reject the possibility of linguistic realism (e.g., Behme Reference Behme2014b; Katz Reference Katz1998). Before rejecting linguistic Platonism out of hand, one ought to remember that
For psychology, AI, and the related cognitive sciences, the question of what a grammar is a theory of is important because its answer can resolve troublesome issues about where the linguist's work ends and the cognitive scientist's begins. A Platonist answer to this question would clearly divide linguistics and cognitive sciences so that the wasteful and unnecessary quarrels of the past can be put behind us. (Katz Reference Katz, Bever, Carroll and Miller1984, p. 28)
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank Vyvyan Evans, David Johnson, and Paul Postal for comments on earlier drafts and accept full responsibility for remaining errors.