On the role of bridge theories in accounts of the evolution of human language

The evident paucity in the work on the evolution of language has been addressed by various strategies, including W. K. Wilkins's & J. Wakefield's (1995) reliance on paleoneurological data as the basis for their arguments concerning which species was the first to possess language capaci...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Language & communication 2001, Vol.21 (1), p.61-71
Main Author: Botha, Rudolf P
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Bloom, P
Cognition & reasoning
Evolution
Language
Linguistics
Pinker, S
Theory
Wakefield, J
Wilkins, W K
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The evident paucity in the work on the evolution of language has been addressed by various strategies, including W. K. Wilkins's & J. Wakefield's (1995) reliance on paleoneurological data as the basis for their arguments concerning which species was the first to possess language capacity. The ontological gap is crossed by three small inferential jumps: (1) from data about the impressions on the interior of fossil skulls, inferences about the sulcal patterns of ancestral brains are drawn; (2) from hypotheses about the sulcal patterns are drawn inferences about neuroanatomical organization; & (3) from theories of neuroanatomy are derived theories about the brain's functional organization in general & the presence of the language capacity in particular. A distinct bridge theory is required for each of these inferential jumps, since they span different ontological domains: properties of fossil skulls & properties of the language capacity. Wilkins & Wakefield's localizational theory is reported to have been faulted by Behavioral and Brain Sciences commentators for assuming an overly detailed knowledge of brain function, a simple "localized" anatomy of cognitive functions, & a neuroanatomical map for the association of functions with neuroanatomical areas, as well as more specific oversights. In any account of the evolution of any aspect of the language capacity, not only a theory of language evolution, but also one or more bridge theories, must be included. Whereas bridge theories are obligatory components of historical accounts of language evolution, as the existing ones are poorly articulated or unjustified, the development of new bridge theories is indicated. 19 References. L. R. Hunter
ISSN:0271-5309
1873-3395
DOI:10.1016/S0271-5309(00)00010-0