Cited by 81Animal Vocal Communication and BehaviorLanguage and cultural evolutionLanguage Development and Disorders

A bird's eye view of human language evolution

Open access
Berwick, Robert C., Beckers, Gabriël J. L., Okanoya, Kazuo, Bolhuis, Johan J.·2012·Frontiers in Evolutionary Neuroscience

Abstract

COMPARATIVE STUDIES OF LINGUISTIC FACULTIES IN ANIMALS POSE AN EVOLUTIONARY PARADOX: language involves certain perceptual and motor abilities, but it is not clear that this serves as more than an input-output channel for the externalization of language proper. Strikingly, the capability for auditory-vocal learning is not shared with our closest relatives, the apes, but is present in such remotely related groups as songbirds and marine mammals. There is increasing evidence for behavioral, neural, and genetic similarities between speech acquisition and birdsong learning. At the same time, researchers have applied formal linguistic analysis to the vocalizations of both primates and songbirds. What have all these studies taught us about the evolution of language? Is the comparative study of an apparently species-specific trait like language feasible? We argue that comparative analysis remains an important method for the evolutionary reconstruction and causal analysis of the mechanisms underlying language. On the one hand, common descent has been important in the evolution of the brain, such that avian and mammalian brains may be largely homologous, particularly in the case of brain regions involved in auditory perception, vocalization, and auditory memory. On the other hand, there has been convergent evolution of the capacity for auditory-vocal learning, and possibly for structuring of external vocalizations, such that apes lack the abilities that are shared between songbirds and humans. However, significant limitations to this comparative analysis remain. While all birdsong may be classified in terms of a particularly simple kind of concatenation system, the regular languages, there is no compelling evidence to date that birdsong matches the characteristic syntactic complexity of human language, arising from the composition of smaller forms like words and phrases into larger ones.

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 · 10.3389/fnevo.2012.00005

Cites

116 of 122 references verified2 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?

  • Human language syntax has a hierarchical structure, described as composition of smaller forms like words and phrases into larger ones.

    “Human language syntax has a hierarchical structure, which Berwick et al described as “composition of smaller forms like words and phrases into larger ones” (Berwick et al., 2012; Miyagawa et al., 2013).”

    From Toward an integration of deep learning and neuroscience (2016) · cites this paper as Berwick et al., 2012

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

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. Aristotle (1984). Historia Animalium, trans. Peck J. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press [Loeb Classical Library].
  2. Berwick R. (1985). Locality Principles and the Acquisition of Syntactic Knowledge. Cambridge: MIT Press
  3. Berwick R. (2011). “All you need is merge: biology, computation, and language from the bottom-up,” in The Biolinguistic Enterprise, eds Di Sciullo A. M. Boecxk C. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 706– 825
  4. Berwick R. Chomsky N. (2011). “Biolinguistics: the current state of its development,” in The Biolinguistic Enterprise, eds Di Sciullo A. M. Boeckx C. (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
  5. Berwick R. Weinberg A. (1985). The Grammatical Basis of Linguistic Performance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  6. Bever T. (1970). “The cognitive basis of linguistic structures,” in Cognition and the Development of Language, ed. Hayes J. R. (New York: Wiley), 279– 362
  7. Chomsky N. (1963). “Formal properties of grammar,” in Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, eds Luce D. Bush R. Galanter E. (New York: Wiley), 323– 418
  8. Dehaene S. (1997). The Number Sense. Oxford: Oxford University Press
  9. Dulai K. von Dornum M. Mollon J. D. Hunt D. M. (1999). The evolution of trichromatic colour vision by opsin gene duplication. Genome Res. 9, 629– 638 10413401
  10. Fitch W. T. (2011). “‘Deep homology’ in the biology and evolution of Language,” in The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty, eds Di Sciullo A. M. Boeckx C. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 135– 166
  11. Jackendoff R. (1977). X-Bar Syntax: A Theory of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  12. Miller G. Chomsky N. (1963). “Finitary models of language users,” in Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. 2, eds Luce D. Bush R. Galanter E. Eugene (New York: Wiley), 419– 491
  13. Niyogi P. (2006). The Computational and Evolutionary Nature of Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  14. Pulvermüller F. (1993). “On conecting syntax and the brain,” in Brain Theory – Spatio-Temporal Aspects of Brain Function, ed. Aertsen (New York: Elsevier), 131– 145
  15. Scharff C. Petri J. (2011). Evo-devo, deep homology and FoxP2: implications implications for the evolution of speech and language. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 366, 2124– 2140 10.1098/rstb.2011.0001 21690130 PMC3130369 · DOI
  16. Stolcke A. (1994). Bayesian Learning of Probabilistic Learning Models. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford
  17. Todt D. Hultsch H. (1996). “Acquisition and performance of repertoires: ways of coping with diversity and versatility,” in Ecology and Evolution of Communication, eds Kroodsma D. E. Miller E. H. (Ithaca, NY; Cornell University Press), 79– 96

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Berwick, R. C., Beckers, G. J. L., Okanoya, K., & Bolhuis, J. J.
Affiliations
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • Max Planck Society (DE)
  • The University of Tokyo (JP)
  • Utrecht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Berwick, Robert C.
Venue
Frontiers in Evolutionary Neuroscience
Published
2012
Volume
4
Issue
APR
Pages
5-5
ISSN
1663-070X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1988678419
Cited by
81
References
112
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 1
FWCI
7.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Frontiers in Evolutionary Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Institutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) (submittedVersion)
  • Frontiers A Journal of Women Studies
Funders
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Developmental Biology › Animal Vocal Communication and Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Language and cultural evolution
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
Keywords
language evolution, comparative linguistics, animal language, songbirds, apes, primate vocalizations, speech development, convergent evolution, regular languages, syntactic complexity

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