takes a more gradualist position). Nevertheless, his insight is the opening wedge in conceiving of a more graceful
incremental evolution of the language capacity. Lewontin (1990: 741), in a reply to Pinker and Bloom, presents the
challenge:
The explanatory reconstruction of the origin of the camera eye by natural selection requires a particular ordering of light receptor and
ennervationfirst, followed by lens, followed by focusing distortionof the lens and iris diaphragm. The reverse order would not work, if every
stage was to be an improvement in vision. Is there an unambiguous ordering for the elements of natural language? Did we have to have them
all at once, in which case the selective theory is in deep trouble?
I will argue that one actually can reconstruct fro m modern hu man language a sequence of distinct innovations over
primate calls, some prior to Bickerton's protolanguage, and some later, each of which is an improvement in
communicativeexpressivenessand precision. LikeBickerton, Iwilllook for tracesofthesestagesindegradedforms of
modern language, and relate these stages to what apes have been trained to do. But in addition—and I take this to be
an important innovation—in some instances I will be able to show, not just that these earlier stages are still present in
the brain, but thattheir“fossils”are present in the grammar of modern language itself, offering a new source of evidence on the
issue.
The consequence is that it will no longer be meaningful to ask the divisive question,“Does primate P (e.g. Sarah,
Washoe, Koko, Kanzi) and did hominid H have language?”We can only ask“Whatelementsof a language capacity
might primateP have, and whatelementsmight hominid H havehad?”Ifnothing else,opening thisroomfora middle
ground should be a useful contribution to discourse.
I will make a number of assumptions without justification. All are arguable, but they either make little difference or
would take us too far afield here.
- I will not be concerned with the question of“what makes humans unique.”There seems often to be an
impulse tofind the single innovation fro mwhich flowed everything distinguishing humans from apes,
whether it is walking upright, having opposable thumbs,eating more meat, females having continuous sexual
receptivity, or something else. All kinds of things make humans unique, just as all kinds of things make every
species unique. - I assume that language arose primarily in the interests of enhancing communication, and only secondarily in
the interests of enhancing thought. (See Chapters 9 and 10 and Jackendoff 1996b; 1997a: ch. 8 for my
position on the relation of language and thought.) - I assume that language arose in the vocal-auditory modality, not in the gestural-visual modality, as has been
proposed by Corballis (1991) and Givón (1995), among others. This is just a matter of convenience in
exposition; a gestural-visual origin would not materially change my story.