Many minimalist theorists including Chomsky repeatedly insist that language
did not evolve as a communication system. However, languages in the world
are actually varied, and the diversity is closely connected to the Communicative
Interface. The model presented in this chapter tries to explain both sides of
language. One is LoT, which is non-adaptive and unchangeable, while the other
is LoC, which is adaptive and diverse. The language which emerged some 50,000
to 100,000 years ago is no doubt LoT, and the diversity of language in both
synchronic and diachronic aspects lies in LoC, which is still constantly
changing.
Notes
1 This chapter is a revised version in English of Hosaka (2014b), which was
originally written in Japanese. I’d like to thank the following people for their
valuable comments on early versions of the chapter: Heizo Nakajima, Masayuki
Ikeuchi, Koji Fujita, Masanobu Ueda, Satoshi Oku, Yoshiki Ogawa.
2 Baker (2013) also mentions the role of case as quoted in the following:
But given Chomsky’s (2000b) promotion of Agree to primitive status,.. .,
the role of case theory is now often back-grounded, and case is seen as
an additional side effect of the primary relation of Agree,.... (B aker 2013:
632, emphasis added)
3 This model seems to be inconsistent with the Single-Cycle Hypothesis ( Chomsky
2005: 18) and appears to be an older assumption with multiple representations.
However, LoT and LoC are based on “virtual conceptual necessity” unique to
thought and communication, respectively. Presupposing both representational
levels is highly adequate from the viewpoint of language evolution discussed
later. In addition, note that this assumption of LoT is not incompatible with
the following remarks by Chomsky because LoT and LoC are considered to be
continuum in this model.
One suggestion that Jerry [Fodor] proposes which seems to me to require
more evidence is that there is a language of thought. And the question is
whether the language of thought is any different from whatever our universal,
internal language is. As far as I can see, we can’t tell anything about the
language of thought other than it’s refl ection of whatever our language is.
And if it’s true – as it is likely – that the existing and, indeed the attainable
languages are only superfi cially different, then the core that they share has
a good claim to be the language of thought – so far as I can see. (Chomsk y
2012a: 71–72)
4 SEM2 can be regarded as “interpretive components of thought”( Chomsky
2007: 13).
5 It makes us assume both syntax with only external merge at LoT and syntax
with external and internal merge at LoC. The former can be called the primary
syntax (Narrow Syntax) and the latter the secondary syntax (Broad Syntax). It
entails that phenomena such as movement and agreement are postulated only
in the secondary syntax at LoC.
6 See Berwick and Chomsky (2011: 19) among others.
7 √ means a bundle of semantic features.
8 It is claimed that this duality of semantics is related to Internal Merge in Chomsky
(2007, 2008, 2012b).
Two aspects of syntactic evolution 209