Introduction
Different scholars and researchers in the field of linguistics have presented diverse views regarding the evolution and nature of language. Derek Bickerton is one of such theorists whose works have managed to shed more light on the matter. He wrote extensively in language evolution in an attempt to understand the origin of creole languages, how young individuals or children developed the relevant competencies, and the manner in which it became an integral feature of human beings. This paper discusses Bickerton’s language evolution theory in light of the major frameworks different authors propose. The main target of the discussion is to articulate the manner in which the works of all the theorists appear to support Bickerton’s ideas and arguments.
Thoughts in Language Evolution
Bickerton managed to publish several books that presented powerful arguments that expanded his theory of language. In the texts, he argues that symbolic reasoning, representation systems, and the concept of syntax evolved continuously to deliver or result in human language (Bickerton, 2009). As people’s cultural practices and mental models developed, people can utilize primitive faculties to communicate with one another. Through the process of niche construction, the first human beings managed to move from one environment to another, thereby acquiring numerous observations and ideas that sustained the evolutionary process (Bickerton, 2009). Consequently, the right stage had already been set for the successful emergence of language as a way of communication (Bickerton, 2009). Due to the power of both temporal and spatial communication of past or future events, humans were able to acquire a unique language that differs significantly from that of the other animals. This amounts to the concept of displacement that played the most crucial role in the eventual development of human language.
From this analysis, it is evident that Bickerton believes that niche construction presented diverse worlds and situations in the desire or search of food. With the establishment of social groups, the first group of human beings to learn how to communicate successfully using spoken words relied on displacement to develop words that anchored memories and subsequent sensory awareness of the targeted food item, place, or even object (Bickerton, 2009). The brain was able to connect several words and develop a mental picture that resulted in a protolanguage (Bickerton, 2009). He went further to propose the famous beads-on-a-strong concept to explain how such a form of communication eventually developed to become the language human beings understand today (Bickerton, 2009). These attributes and describes explain why Bickerton’s theory remains outstanding and informative.
Different theorists and scholars have presented diverse theories that try to explain how human language evolved to become a reality. Ulbaek (1998) indicates that two models have emerged that describe this kind of development and the unique factors that might have supported it. The first outstanding group of theories is known as the continuity approach which that the concepts and attributes of the Darwinian framework. The major theories under this category appear to support the notion that “language is a big system that could not have evolved out of nothing” (Ulbaek, 1998, p. 30). However, the work goes further to indicate that researchers should not study such a model with finality since there are other schools of thought that describe the manner in which language might have emerged and developed.
The issue of culture and language appears to receive some thoughts from Bickerton. The reader realizes that such a theorist did not place so much emphasis on culture since it played the role of enabler throughout the language development and evolution process. The only outstanding aspect that researchers need to take seriously is that humans were social creatures who lived in groups to search for food. Following similar notions, Everett (2005) indicates that there is no identifiable relation between a given culture and its language. However, people need to acknowledge that culture only tries to mold the nature of the language but not its quality or content. Such an argument explains why the morphological aspects of a specific language remain strong and uninfluenced by cultural trends and behaviors.
The works of Pinker and Bloom presented numerous thoughts and ideas that encouraged people to stop asking whether human language evolved or not. Instead, their contributions expanded the existing literature on the notion that language developed continuously as Bickerton describes (Pinker & Bloom, 1990). These researchers presented convincing thoughts and ideas that made it possible for more people to acknowledge that gestures were involved in the evolution of language (Pinker & Bloom, 1990). Within the past few centuries, the evolution and perceptions of music try to shed more light on the manner in which language could have developed to become a superior achievement that continues to govern human interactions.
The works of Chomsky and his colleagues remain outstanding since they present powerful arguments and ideas that encourage more psychologists and scholars of language to move the debate to the next level and start considering how human language could have evolved. This sets the stage for avoiding the cultural model or approach that has affected the quality and quantity of information available in this field (Pinker & Bloom, 1990). While some schools of thought might have attacked the theory of language evolution as proposed by Bickerton and other scholars, the outstanding fact is that there are convincing ideas that future analysts and readers need to take seriously (Everett, 2005). For instance, the Darwinian model offers powerful insights that are applicable to this model. Different scholars, such as Chomsky and his research colleagues, appear to follow the same line of thought to offer powerful arguments that have widened the scope of this topic.
A detailed examination of the ideas different analysts presented can help modern analysts acquire additional insights regarding the nature and origin of human language. In the work “The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve?”, Hauser, Chomsky, and Fitch (2002), indicate that: “during evolution, the modular and highly domain-specific system of recursion may have become penetrable and domain-general” (p. 578). With this kind of development, the first people to speak may have found recursion a powerful idea or practice that was capable of solving or making it easier for them to understand the major problems they were experiencing in their lives.
With the presence of selective pressures in the natural environment, a domain-specific attribute might have emerged that resonated with the humans’ evolutionary past. The process of neural reorganization may have also taken place to improve the way individuals recalled specific items or interacted to address their past and present pressures. These developments created the best opportunity for supporting the establishment of what Bickerton called protolanguage. This achievement would also result in the acquisition of additional thoughts and words that made it possible for human beings to start communicating in a primitive manner (Hauser et al., 2002). These descriptions and observations reveal that Chomsky’s school of thought appears to support Bickerton’s theory of the evolution of language.
Scholars and modern-day analysts can, therefore, consider the nature of the above hypotheses since they are testable and appear to converge. The researchers behind such schools of thought appreciate the fact that human language should have begun at some point. However, such a process might have followed a continuum that eventually resulted in the emergence of a primitive protolanguage (Ulbaek, 1998). When professionals in this field pursue these descriptive models as comparative in nature, it would be possible for the global society to think deeper and present a detailed theory that supports the faculty of language and how it supports human beings to achieve their social, cultural, and economic goals.
Conclusion
The theory of language development and evolution has continued to attract attention of many analysts, researchers, and psychologists. From the above discussion, it is evident that different professionals, who have contributed or presented their ideas in the field, echo Bickerton’s arguments and assumptions. Their arguments appear to present human language as an ability that evolved for many centuries to become what it is today. This concept of evolution remains acceptable since it has the potential to reduce the divergent and conflicting views regarding the appropriateness of the outlined thought of language evolution. When more stakeholders take the theory into consideration, new ideas and descriptions will emerge to support or expand the available knowledge today.
References
- Bickerton, D. (2009). Adam’s tongue: How humans made language, how language made humans. Hill and Wang.
- Everett, D. L. (2005). Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in pirahã: Another look at the design features of human language. Current Anthropology, 46(4), 621-646. Web.
- Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298(5598), 1569-1579. Web.
- Pinker, S., & Bloom, P. (1990). Natural language and natural selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13, 707-784. Web.
- Ulbaek, I. (1998). The origin of language and cognition. In J. R. Hurford, M. Studdert-Kennedy & C.Knight (Eds.), Approaches to the evolution of language (pp. 30-43). Cambridge University Press.