There is hardly any need for phrases before there is a sentence, and there is not much need for morphology before syntax. Although morphology is used to make semantic distinctions (one/many, male/female, etc.), its main function is to serve syntax in argument, predicate, and argument-predicate relation marking ( Luuk, 2009). Thus, the first syntactic unit was probably functionally equivalent to a sentence. There would be more than one possibility for this. Given the availability of semantically diverse stem categories, the simplest solution would have been to concatenate arguments and predicates, as in [man go]. Alternatively, with a categorially uniform stem choice, a solution would have been
to concatenate different semantic roles, as in
[man forest], interpreted as ‘man go to forest’. Due to the opacity of interpretation the second possibility seems less likely Cobimetinib supplier but, as the categorial contents of the set of input stems is not known, the more plausible scenario cannot be established with certainty. The general principle of grammar is the head-dependent relation, i.e. the principle of asymmetric dependency. Thus, grammar and semantic embedding presuppose CARC. Grammar and semantic embedding are inconceivable without CARC, whereas the latter is perfectly conceivable without language, http://www.selleckchem.com/products/kpt-330.html grammar and semantic embedding. As CARC is prelinguistically useful (e.g. Rolziracetam in planning), there is a fair chance that it antedated language. Interfaces to phonology and semantics aside (Hauser et al., 2002, Jackendoff, 2002 and Nowak and Komarova, 2001), the three building blocks signs, concatenation, embedding are all that is required for syntax – any syntax can be built (and described) with them6 – while some of them are redundant in describing pre-syntactic
stages. Noncommutative concatenation of signs yields the head-dependent relation for free (see above). Observe that one cannot speak of natural language syntax until stage (4) is achieved. Natural language syntax is qualitatively different from the raw syntax of other species (e.g. birds) communication systems in being semantically compositional (Gardner et al., 2005 and Hurford, 2004). Given the accounts that apes and dolphins can be trained to learn symbols and understand primitive sentences in captivity, a proficiency seemingly pertaining to at least stage (3), it is puzzling that, to the present knowledge at least, they have developed no stage (3) communication system in the wild (Herman et al., 1984 and Savage-Rumbaugh et al., 1998). One explanation that has been proposed to this curious inaptitude to commune is a lack of motivation (Bickerton, 2003, Seyfarth et al., 2005 and Szamado and Szathmary, 2006). Indeed, the degree of communication that gets rewarded in human societies is much higher than that of among other primate species (Knight, 2002).