Theoretical bases of a possible non-canonical hypothesis on the origins of the human linguistic tool
Authors
- José Luis Guijarro Morales
Abstract
The canonical hypothesis argues that human language evolved from simpler communicative acts in a manner non-specified, since there are no primitive languages in the World which could give us hints as to the steps it may have taken in its evolution. I think that creating a new hypothesis based on a serious attempt to reach the levels of adequacy proposed by Chomsky, and on adopting the endosymbiotic evolutionary mechanism proposed by Margulis, could easily do away with those (and a host of others) theoretical problems.
Keywords
Downloads
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2018 Pragmalingüística
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
AUNGER, R. (ed.) (2000): Darwinizing Culture: The Status of Memetics as a Science, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 163.
BARKOW, J. H., COSMIDES, L. y J. TOOBY (eds.) (1992): The Adapted Mind, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
BERNÁRDEZ SANCHÍS, E. (1999): ¿Qué son las lenguas?, Madrid: Alianza Editorial.
BICKERTON, D. (2003): “Symbol and structure: a comprehensive framework for language evolution”, Christiansen, M. H. y Kirby, S. (eds.): Language Evolution: The States of the Art, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 77-93.
BICKERTON, D. (2009): Adam’s Tongue, New York: Hill and Wang.
BURGE, T. (2010): “A real science of mind”, New York Times (19-XII-2010): http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/a-real-science-of-mind/.
CHOMSKY, N. (1957): Syntactic Structures, La Haya: Mouton.
CHRISTIANSEN, M. H. y KIRBY, S. (eds.) (2003): Language Evolution, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
FITCH, W. T., HAUSER, M. D. y CHOMSKY, N. (2005): “The evolution of the language faculty: clarifications and implications”, Cognition, 97, p. 180.
FODOR, J. (1983): Modularity of Mind, Massachusetts: M.I.T Press.
FODOR, J. (1985): “Précis of modularity of mind”, The Behavioural and Brain Sciences 8, pp. 1-12.
GOULD, S. J. (1993): “Fullfilling the spandrels of world and mind”, Selzer, pp. 310-36.
PINKER, S. (1994): The Language Instinct, London: Penguin Books.
RIVIÈRE GÓMEZ, A. (1982): Razonamiento y representación, Madrid: Siglo XXI de España, Editores.
SAGAN, L. (1967): "On the origin of mitosing cells", Journal of Theorethical Biology, 14 (3), p. 255.
HAUSER, M. D., CHOMSKY, N. y TECUMSEH FITCH, W. (2002): “The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve?”, Science, 298:1569-1579.
MARGULIS, L. (2002): Una revolución en la evolución, Valencia: Universitat de Valencia, p. 34.
MARR, D. (1982): Vision: A computational investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information, San Francisco: Feeman.
MAYR, E. (1984): “What is Darwinism Today?”, Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 2, p.145.
PINKER, S. y JACKENDOFF, R. (2005): “The Faculty of Language: What's Special about it?”, Cognition, 95(2), p. 201.
SELZER, J. (ed.) (1993): Understanding Scientific Prose, Madison: Wisc. University of Wisconsin Press.
SHAH, I. (1973): The Exploits of the Incomparable Mulla Nasrudin, London: Pan Macmillan (Picador Books).
SPERBER, D. (2000) “An objection to the memetic approach to culture”, Aunger, R. (ed.): Darwinizing Culture: The Status of Memetics as a Science, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 163-173.