et al. 1998): non-situation-specific use of a repertoireof single symbols, including both symbols for individuals (proper
names) and symbols for categories (common nouns).^121
However, we can potentially go back further in evolution than the one-word stage: certain little-remarked aspects of
modern language are if anythingmoreprimitive than the child's one-word utterances. Consider the“defective”lexical
items mentioned in Chapter 5. These items have no syntax and therefore cannot be integrated into larger syntactic
constructions (other than direct quotes and the like). One group of the mis associated with sudden high affect, for
instanceouch!, dammit!, wow!andoboy!These can remain in the repertoire of the deepest aphasics, apparently coming
fro mthe right he misphere (Jackson 1874). Another group includes situation-specific utterances such asshh, psst, and
some uses ofheythat have almost theflavor of primate alarm calls. Though theouchtype and theshhtype both lack
syntax, they have different properties.Ouchis often used non-communicatively, butshhcalls for a hearer; and theouch
type are more likely to be uttered involuntarily than theshhtype, which are usually under conscious control. Also
among single-wordutterances are the situation-specific greetingshelloandgoodbyeand the answersyesandno. The latter
are not completely situation-specific: in addition to answering questions, one can useyes!to encourage or congratulate
the addressee andno!as a proto-command for the addressee to cease what (s)he is doing. It is important to notice that
no animal call system includes a signal of generalized negation likeno, which as all parents know is one of the earliest
words in child vocabulary.
I would like to think of such words as these as“fossils”of the one-word stage of language evolution—single-word
utterances that for some reason are not integrated into the larger combinatorial system. English probably has a few
dozen of these—let us not forget exoticasuch asabracadabraandgadzooks—and I imagineevery language has parallels.
Their semantic and pragmatic diversity suggests that they are island remnants of a larger system, superseded by true
grammar.^122
240 ARCHITECTURAL FOUNDATIONS
(^121) It is an interestingquestionwhy apes have this capacity, if in fact they do. Why should they be able to acquire and use symbols, despitethe fact that it is not something they
everencounter in thewild?I don't know. What I do knowis thattheydon't spontaneously inventsymbols, thewaydeaf childrendo in inventing“home sign”(section4.9.4)
. My inclination is to think symbol use is a“spandrel”for apes, a consequence of other capacities, but that it has been ramped up into a robust specialization in humans,
perhaps by the“Baldwin effect.”
(^122) Justtobeveryclear: Ia mnotsuggestingthattheactual“defective”lexicalitems ofEnglisharehistoricalholdoversfromthisstageofevolution.Rather,whatisa holdoveris
the possibility for a language to contain such“defective items”those of English are realizations of this possibility.