Syntax and Protolanguage

Bickerton (1998:351) believes that long before the hominid-pongid split, there was a mechanism in the brain which was preadapted for the processing of syntax but this mechanism was used for thematic analysis not for language. Bickerton (1998) has proposed that the birth of syntax was the selection mechanism for the vocal apparatus of Homo sapiens sapiens. However, Lieberman (1998) proposes that syntax resulted automatically from preexisting motor processes once an adequate vocal channel evolved. Bickerton (1998:342) critiques Lieberman's hypothesis by stating that it is supported by an implied analogy between the frequent concurrence of phonological and syntactic deficits among victims of Parkinson's disease and Broca's aphasia...[Lieberman] appears to share the belief, apparently all but universal among nonsyntacticians, that syntax consists merely in placing words in some regular serial order.

Bickerton (1998:343-344) proposes that syntax is exclusively a computational mechanism that must deal with units (words, phrases) which cannot be defined in phonological terms (phonemes, syllables). Thus, if syntax developed while phonology was still primitive, the capacity to produce long and complex sentences would have selected very strongly for improvements in clarity (Bickerton 1998:344). While Bickerton (Studdert-Kennedy 1998:207-208) acknowledges that syntax could not have come into existence until there was a sizable vocabulary which required that units be organized into complex structures, he does not believe that a large vocabulary required vocalizations which had been differentiated into phonetic units that could be organized into words. neither verbs nor any of their arguments make obligatory appearances.

According to Bickerton (1998:355), in language, verbs and their obligatory arguments must be fully represented. In protolanguage, neither verbs nor any of their arguments make obligatory appearances therefore, any words whatsoever can be put together (Bickerton 1998:349). However, isn't this the ability to create novel words and phrases, Bickerton, like Chomsky, appears to be sacrificing the context and the consensus information provided by language for grammatical form. As an evolutionary adaptive mechanism, syntax and grammar should be fluid and not confined to rigid rules. This is what we find in current world languages. To view languages which do not appear to conform to these linguistic rules as simple seems very Eurocentric. Instead of questioning which English grammatical elements are similar to those of a given pidgin/creole, perhaps the question should be how the grammatical elements of a given pidgin/creole function as a means of communication.