the former was a component of protolanguage and still exists in the brain of
modern humans as a vestige of language evolution. The emergence of Merge
was the crucial event in the (nearly abrupt) shift from protolanguage to full
human language (Figure 9.2).
So suppose there was protolanguage before human language, very probably at
some point in the lineage of H. erectus. Chomsky is well-known for his persistent
opposition to this idea, but this opposition is based on his belief that Merge was
an instantaneous innovation (as a result of brain rewiring caused by mutation)
and did not evolve gradually, and that no form of language was possible until
Merge emerged (Choms ky 2005 and elsewhere; see also Bicke rton 2009). But
we have seen the possibility that Merge-less non-hierarchical grammar operates
in the modern human and non-human brains as a reflex of protolanguage.
Given protolanguage, and the discrepancy between protolanguage and human
language, the “lone mutant” argument against communication as an original
function of language now needs to be rethought and weakened.
It is only natural that protolanguage, to the extent that it was shared among
a group of individuals, was already adaptive as an instrument of communication,
thought, and more. Then arrived a new individual equipped with Merge and
hierarchical grammar in addition to the old non-hierarchical grammar. Was this
individual totally unable to use this new capacity to communicate with other
members of the group? The situation might be compared to an intact person
surrounded by Broca’s aphasics. Not a very good comparison, to be sure, but
the point should be clear. Just as this intact person can map part of his/her
configurational grammar to non-configurational grammar for ease of commu-
nication ([ S [ V O ]] can be safely modified to [ S V O ]), the first individual
with human language was likely to be able to utilize it to communicate with
other individuals, though of course in a restricted way.
This observation is not to deny the primary importance of language as
an instrument of thought brought about by Merge and the CI interface,
but it does prompt us to take a generic, pluralistic view towards the original
function(s) of language, by departing from the simplistic thought vs. com-
munication debate and taking all other possibilities into consideration. Who
could deny the possibility that its original function was neither thought nor
communication (both being later co-options) but was something much more
fundamental, such as hierarchical perception/reorganization of the image of
the world, so that it would become more easily manipulable for both thought
and communication?
Figure 9.2 The shift from protolanguage to full human language triggered by Merge.
144 Koji Fujita