IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pbio00/3000539.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

All or nothing: No half-Merge and the evolution of syntax

Author

Listed:
  • Robert C Berwick
  • Noam Chomsky

Abstract

In their Essay on the evolution of human language, Martins and Boeckx seek to refute what they call the “half-Merge fallacy”—the conclusion that the most elementary computational operation for human language syntax, binary set formation, or “Merge,” evolved in a single step. We show that their argument collapses. It is based on a serious misunderstanding of binary set formation as well as formal language theory. Furthermore, their specific evolutionary scenario counterproposal for a “two-step” evolution of Merge does not work. Although we agree with their Essay on several points, including that there must have been many steps in the evolution of human language and the importance of understanding how language and language syntax are implemented in the brain, we disagree that there is any justification, empirical or conceptual, for the decomposition of binary set formation into separate steps.In response to an Essay by Martins and Boeckx, this Formal Comment by Berwick and Chomsky argues that a crucial step in the evolution of human language can now be pinpointed to the appearance of a single new, but simple, computational operation.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert C Berwick & Noam Chomsky, 2019. "All or nothing: No half-Merge and the evolution of syntax," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(11), pages 1-5, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:3000539
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000539
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000539
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000539&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000539?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:3000539. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosbiology (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.