Lluís Barceló-Coblijn

The Evolution of Language: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference (EVOLANG11)

In this work we compare, on the well explored domain of Indo-European languages, the phylogenetic outputs of three different sets of linguistic characters: traditional etymological judgments, a system for phonetic alignment of lists of cognates, and a set of values for generative syntactic parameters. The correlation and relative informativeness of distances and phylogenies generated by the three types of characters can thus be for the first time accurately evaluated, and the degree of success of the last two, innovative, alternatives to the classical comparative method can be so assessed.

Hominin interbreeding and language evolution: fine-tuning the details

Commentaries on our target paper ‘Paleogenomics, hominin interbreeding and language evolution’ generally agree with (and in some cases support) our claim that hominin interbreeding did not play a crucial role in the emergence of modern language. Several aspects that were not properly attended to in our contribution were also noted. We will try to respond to these here. At the same time our commentators have posited some other important issues that go far beyond our genetic concerns. Such observations are relevant to the discussion about when and how modern language evolved in our clade. We will also try to define our position regarding these questions. After this fruitful exchange we still think that current data do not support the existence of a full-fledged language for Neanderthals. Of course, future findings may show the opposite. One should not be dogmatic about this. The study of language evolution is an intricate enterprise given the evident lack of evidence of Paleolithic languages or proto-languages. In addition, because of the history of this subfield, banned for an infamous period by many academics due to the simplicity for creating justso-stories, caution is in order. As posited in this debate by Emiliano Bruner, in order to not fall in the same trap, only probable (but not just possible) hypotheses should be considered. We regard our position as probable on the basis of the available evidence. We would like to thank our commentators for their correspondence and also the editor for the possibility of being involved in it. Bruner: approaching the evolution of the language faculty