Cited by 81Language and cultural evolutionSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationAnimal Vocal Communication and Behavior

The emergence of hierarchical structure in human language

Open access
Miyagawa, Shigeru, Berwick, Robert C., Okanoya, Kazuo·2013·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

We propose a novel account for the emergence of human language syntax. Like many evolutionary innovations, language arose from the adventitious combination of two pre-existing, simpler systems that had been evolved for other functional tasks. The first system, Type E(xpression), is found in birdsong, where the same song marks territory, mating availability, and similar "expressive" functions. The second system, Type L(exical), has been suggestively found in non-human primate calls and in honeybee waggle dances, where it demarcates predicates with one or more "arguments," such as combinations of calls in monkeys or compass headings set to sun position in honeybees. We show that human language syntax is composed of two layers that parallel these two independently evolved systems: an "E" layer resembling the Type E system of birdsong and an "L" layer providing words. The existence of the "E" and "L" layers can be confirmed using standard linguistic methodology. Each layer, E and L, when considered separately, is characterizable as a finite state system, as observed in several non-human species. When the two systems are put together they interact, yielding the unbounded, non-finite state, hierarchical structure that serves as the hallmark of full-fledged human language syntax. In this way, we account for the appearance of a novel function, language, within a conventional Darwinian framework, along with its apparently unique emergence in a single species.

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/fpsyg.2013.00071

Cites

40 of 41 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?

  • 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 Miyagawa et al., 2013

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

3 of the 44 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. 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. Boeckx C. (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press), 706– 825
  2. Chomsky N. (2008). “On phases,” in Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory, eds Freidin R. Otero C. P. Zubizarreta M. L. (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press), 133– 166
  3. Darwin C. (1871). The Descent of Man in Relation to Sex, Vol. 179 London: Murray, 182
  4. Hale K. Keyser S. J. (1993). “On the argument structure and the lexical expression of grammatical relations,” in The View from Bulding 20: Essays in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, eds Hale K. H. Keyser K. J. (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press), 53– 110

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Miyagawa, S., Berwick, R. C., & Okanoya, K.
Affiliations
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • The University of Tokyo (JP)
Corresponding author
Miyagawa, Shigeru
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2013
Volume
4
Pages
71-71
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2102245440
Cited by
81
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 2
FWCI
121.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Institutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
  • Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (23240033, 23300085)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Language and cultural evolution
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Developmental Biology › Animal Vocal Communication and Behavior
Keywords
language emergence, hierarchy, bird song, honeybee waggle dance, lexical layers, finite-state systems, evolutionary innovation

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