Language in Language Evolution Research
Many controversies in language evolution research derive from the fact that language is itself a natural language word, which makes the underlying concept fuzzy and cumbersome, and a common perception is that progress in language evolution research is hindered because researchers do not ‘talk about...
Main Authors: | , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Biolinguistics
2020-10-01
|
Series: | Biolinguistics |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://www.biolinguistics.eu/index.php/biolinguistics/article/view/739 |
id |
doaj-91d014b64a564f8db24be0d22d122a71 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-91d014b64a564f8db24be0d22d122a712020-11-25T02:02:26ZengBiolinguisticsBiolinguistics1450-34172020-10-0114SILanguage in Language Evolution ResearchSlawomir Wacewicz0Przemyslaw Zywiczynski1Stefan Hartmann2Michael Pleyer3Antonio Benítez-Burraco4Nicolaus Copernicus University in TorunNicolaus Copernicus University in TorunUniversität DüsseldorfUniversität Koblenz LandauUniversidad de Sevilla Many controversies in language evolution research derive from the fact that language is itself a natural language word, which makes the underlying concept fuzzy and cumbersome, and a common perception is that progress in language evolution research is hindered because researchers do not ‘talk about the same thing’. In this article, we claim that agreement on a single, top-down definition of language is not a sine qua non for good and productive research in the field of language evolution. First, we use the example of the notion FLN (‘faculty of language in the narrow sense’) to demonstrate how the specific wording of an important top-down definition of (the faculty of) language can—surprisingly—be inconsequential to actual research practice. We then review four approaches to language evolution that we estimate to be particularly influential in the last decade. We show how their breadth precludes a single common conceptualization of language but instead leads to a family resemblance pattern, which underwrites fruitful communication between these approaches, leading to cross-fertilisation and synergies. https://www.biolinguistics.eu/index.php/biolinguistics/article/view/739languagelanguage evolutionevolutionary linguisticsconceptual diversityFLNfaculty of language |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Slawomir Wacewicz Przemyslaw Zywiczynski Stefan Hartmann Michael Pleyer Antonio Benítez-Burraco |
spellingShingle |
Slawomir Wacewicz Przemyslaw Zywiczynski Stefan Hartmann Michael Pleyer Antonio Benítez-Burraco Language in Language Evolution Research Biolinguistics language language evolution evolutionary linguistics conceptual diversity FLN faculty of language |
author_facet |
Slawomir Wacewicz Przemyslaw Zywiczynski Stefan Hartmann Michael Pleyer Antonio Benítez-Burraco |
author_sort |
Slawomir Wacewicz |
title |
Language in Language Evolution Research |
title_short |
Language in Language Evolution Research |
title_full |
Language in Language Evolution Research |
title_fullStr |
Language in Language Evolution Research |
title_full_unstemmed |
Language in Language Evolution Research |
title_sort |
language in language evolution research |
publisher |
Biolinguistics |
series |
Biolinguistics |
issn |
1450-3417 |
publishDate |
2020-10-01 |
description |
Many controversies in language evolution research derive from the fact that language is itself a natural language word, which makes the underlying concept fuzzy and cumbersome, and a common perception is that progress in language evolution research is hindered because researchers do not ‘talk about the same thing’. In this article, we claim that agreement on a single, top-down definition of language is not a sine qua non for good and productive research in the field of language evolution. First, we use the example of the notion FLN (‘faculty of language in the narrow sense’) to demonstrate how the specific wording of an important top-down definition of (the faculty of) language can—surprisingly—be inconsequential to actual research practice. We then review four approaches to language evolution that we estimate to be particularly influential in the last decade. We show how their breadth precludes a single common conceptualization of language but instead leads to a family resemblance pattern, which underwrites fruitful communication between these approaches, leading to cross-fertilisation and synergies.
|
topic |
language language evolution evolutionary linguistics conceptual diversity FLN faculty of language |
url |
https://www.biolinguistics.eu/index.php/biolinguistics/article/view/739 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT slawomirwacewicz languageinlanguageevolutionresearch AT przemyslawzywiczynski languageinlanguageevolutionresearch AT stefanhartmann languageinlanguageevolutionresearch AT michaelpleyer languageinlanguageevolutionresearch AT antoniobenitezburraco languageinlanguageevolutionresearch |
_version_ |
1724953054977982464 |