CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 10Language and cultural evolutionEvolution and Genetic DynamicsSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation

Evolutionary Dynamics Do Not Motivate a Single-Mutant Theory of Human Language

Open access
de Boer, Bart, Thompson, Bill, Ravignani, Andrea, Boeckx, Cedric·2019·bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
DOI 10.1101/517029

Preprint — published as 10.1038/s41598-019-57235-8

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

One of the most controversial hypotheses in cognitive science is the Chomskyan evolutionary conjecture that language arose instantaneously in our species as the result of a single staggeringly fortuitous mutation. Here we analyze the evolutionary dynamics implied by this hypothesis, which has never been formalized. The theory supposes the emergence and fixation of a single mutant (capable of the syntactic operation Merge ) during a narrow historical window as a result of frequency-independent selection under a huge fitness advantage in a population of an effective size that is standardly assumed to have been no larger than ~15 000 early humans. We examine this proposal by combining diffusion analysis and extreme value theory to derive a probabilistic formulation of its dynamics. Perhaps counter-intuitively, a macro-mutation is much more unlikely a priori than multiple mutations with smaller fitness effects, yet both hypotheses predict fixation with high conditional probability. The consequences of this asymmetry have not been accounted for previously. Our results diffuse any suggestion that evolutionary reasoning provides an independent rationale for the controversial single-mutant theory of language. Significance statement: In recent years, Chomsky and colleagues have sought support for their minimalist theory of the language faculty from evolutionary considerations. They have argued for a spontaneous emergence of a mutation conferring an advantage for thought independent of communication. Here for the first time a formalization of this view is offered, and contrasted with a more gradual evolutionary scenario. The outcome of our analysis argues against the Chomskyan view.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1101/517029

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Chomsky N (1995) The minimalist program (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
  2. Berwick RC, Chomsky N (2011) The Biolinguistic Program: The Current State of its Evolution. The Biolinguistic Entreprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty, eds Di Sciullo AM, Boeckx C (Oxford University Press, Oxford), pp 19-41.
  3. Berwick RC, Chomsky N (2016) Why only us: Language and evolution (MIT press).
  4. van Kampen NG (1992) Stochastic Processes in Chemistry and Physics (Elsevier Science B. V., Amsterdam).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
de Boer, B., Thompson, B., Ravignani, A., & Boeckx, C.
Affiliations
  • Max Planck Society (DE)
  • Vrije Universiteit Brussel (BE)
  • Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ES)
ORCID
Venue
bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2019-01-10
DOI
10.1101/517029
OpenAlex
W2910026918
Cited by
10
References
35
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
  • Dipòsit Digital de la Universitat de Barcelona (Universitat de Barcelona) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • European Commission (665501, HORIZON2020)
  • Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (No. 665501, 12N5517N, 665501)
  • Vlaamse regering
  • H2020 European Research Council (789999)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Language and cultural evolution
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Keywords
origin of language, Merge operation, language faculty, fixation probability, population size, multiple mutations, diffusion analysis, extreme value theory, evolutionary dynamics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review