1

2021 April 30
Structural, evolutionary and biocognitive
explanations are mutually compatible
MARTIN HASPELMATH
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology

Preamble

There is no deep reason for ideological divisions in linguistics

– we do not need to have “commitments” or “tenets” (e.g. Lakoff 1991; Goldberg 2003)
– we do not need to decide “what linguistics is about” (e.g. Hornstein 2019)
– we do not need to “subscribe to” a framework and defend it
– we do not need to perpetuate diverging terminologies

Different methodological choices (“approaches”) are more compatible with each

other than many people think.

1. Three types of explanations

Structural explanations

Language systems are more orderly than one may think at first glance, and
we can often reduce apparent variety to deeper regularities.

Evolutionary explanations

In diachronic change, speakers often select variants that increase the fitness
or utility of their language system – language systems are (to a significant
extent) the product of evolutionary adaptation.

Biocognitive explanations

Language systems are constrained by being acquired by humans with their

particular biological properties. Not every logically possible language is
attested, so innate biocognitive constraints can explain observed limits
on worldwide diversity.

We may want to distinguish

– structural linguistics
– adaptive linguistics
– biolinguistics

but only if these are not thought of as “competing ideologies” (or “schools of
thought”) – they should be complementary.
 2

Competition makes sense between competing hypotheses (= competing claims),

and perhaps between competing methods (though methods are often
complementary, too).

2. Structural explanations

Structural explanations reduce apparent variety to deeper regularities.

(A) vowel systems

i u
e o
a

can be reduced to three binary features: [±high], [±low], [±back]:

i [+high, –low, –back]

u [+high, –low, +back]
e [–high, –low, –back]
o [–high, –low, +back]
a [–high, +low, +back]

(B) German word order

(1) Katja singt ein Lied.

K. sings a song

(2) Katja hat ein Lied gesungen.

K. has a song sung

(3) Wenn Katja ein Lied singt, ...

when K. a song sings

(4) Wenn Katja ein Lied gesungen hat, ...

when K. a song sung has

(5) Morgen singt Katja ein Lied.

tomorrow sings K. a song

This order is quite rigid, and it can be described by setting up an abstract template:

prefield – P1 – middle field – nonfinite verb – P2

Then the number of rules that we need can be simplified:

– arguments or adverbials can occur in the prefield or the middle field

– subordinators occur in P1 and preclude a prefield
– the finite verb (singt, hat) occurs in P1 unless this field is filled by a subordinator
– otherwise the finite verb occurs in P2
 3

(C) Sakha differential object marking

The patient object in Sakha (a Turkic language) is accusative-marked,

but only when it is definite (Baker 2015):

(5) a. Masha salamaat-y sie-te.

Masha porridge-ACC eat-PST.3SG
‘Masha ate the porridge.’

b. Masha salamaat sie-te.

Masha porridge eat-PST.3SG
‘Masha ate porridge.’

This corresponds to a word order difference:

a definite (and accusative-marked) object precedes an adverb:

(6) a. Masha salamaat-y türgennik sie-te.

Masha porridge-ACC quickly eat-PST.3SG
‘Masha ate the porridge quickly.’

b. Masha türgennik salamaat sie-te.

Masha quickly porridge eat-PST.3SG
‘Masha ate porridge quickly.’ (*salamaat türgennik siete)

Baker (2015: 126):

this is because the domain for accusative case assignment is the TP, and when the
object is not moved out of the VP in (6a), it is not accessible for case.
 4

3. Evolutionary explanations

language systems are (to a significant extent) the product of evolutionary

adaptation

(A) vowel systems

– symmetric triangular vowel systems can be explained as making optimal use of the
vowel space (dispersion theory: Liljencrants & Lindblom 1972; Gordon 2016)

– vowel systems are constantly recreated through diachronic change, e.g.

Latin French
u>y mūrus [myʀ] mur ‘wall’
a>ɛ carus [ʃɛʀ] cher ‘dear’
e>a tectum [twa] toit ‘roof’
o>u collum [ku] cou ‘neck’
e>i lēctum [li] lit ‘read’

– the changes tend to be of a kind that yields a well-dispersed vowel space (cf.
Martinet 1955: Économie des changement phonétiques)

– the changes are adaptive

(B) differential object marking

– object marking of definite or animate objects can be explained as making optimal

use of role-marking, because those types of nominals that are least likely to be
objects are marked (Bossong 1991)

– the changes are of a kind that yields such systems, e.g.

Latin ad ‘to’ > Spanish a

Latin per ‘though’ > Romanian pe
Russian -a (genitive) > -a (accusative)
German -en (stem marker) > -en (accusative), e.g. den Linguist-en
Chinese bǎ 把 ‘take‘ > bǎ (accusative preposition)

– the changes are adaptive

“Evolutionary explanations” have also been called “functional explanations” – but I

prefer “evolutionary” or “adaptive”, because they operate at the level of language
change (like biological evolution).

There is no claim of synchronic language-particular “functionality” –

synchronically, languages often show nonfunctional or dysfunctional features.
The functional-adaptive factors explain general trends, not necessarily language-
particular features.
 5

4. Biocognitive explanations

Innate biocognitive constraints can explain observed limits on worldwide diversity.

Specifically: languages are constrained by formal universals (architectures of
grammar and types of rules) and substantive universals (specific features and
categories) (Chomsky 1965)

(A) vowel systems:

possibly constrained by the universal features of Chomsky & Halle (1968):

“That there must be a rich system of a priori properties – of essential linguistic universals – is
fairly obvious... general linguistic theory might propose, as substantive universals, that the lexical
items of any language are assigned to fixed categories such as noun, verb and adjective, and that
phonetic transcriptions must make use of a particular, fixed set of phonetic features...
We will be concerned with the theory of “universal phonetics,” that part of general lingusitics
that specifies the class of possible phonetic representations” (Chomsky & Halle 1968: 4)

(B) differential object marking:

possibly constrained by a substantive set of universally possible case assignment rules,
as in Baker (2015)

(7) a. High case in TP (clause) is ergative.

b. Low case in TP (clause) is accusative.
c. High case in VP is dative.
d. High case in NP is genitive (there is no low case in NP).
e. Unmarked case is nominative-absolutive.
(simplified from Baker’s “dependent case” theory; Haspelmath 2018)

(C) German word order:

word order is possibly constrained by universal functional hierarchies (CP – IP – VP)
and constraints on movement (cf. Haider 2010)

It is odd that the finite verb should be in the “C” position (for complementizer), but
this analysis has been widely proposed – the hope is that the general “CP – IP – VP”
system explains German word order.
 6

5. Why these three types of explanations are not incompatible

5.1. Structural and biocognitive explanations are not incompatible

In generative grammar, both types of explanation are pursued – and the idea is that the
structural building blocks are part of the innate grammar blueprint (“Universal
Grammar”). So they are obviously compatible.

But they are logically independent of each other, and many generative linguists do
not want to commit themselves to rich innate grammatical knowledge (especially since
Chomsky 2005, who reversed his earlier position and no longer claims that the
structural building blocks are innate (cf. Fitch 2016; and my 2021 blogpost:
https://dlc.hypotheses.org/2481).

5.2. Structural and evolutionary explanations are not incompatible

In general, structural description is compatible with evolutionary explanation – and

indeed, the two are obviously complementary. We need description before we can
move on to evolutionary explanation.

Consider vowel systems again:

i u
e o
a

can be reduced to three binary features: [±high], [±low], [±back]:

i [+high, –low, –back]

u [+high, –low, +back]
e [–high, –low, –back]
o [–high, –low, +back]
a [–high, +low, +back]

One can propose an elegant description in terms of binary features, and at the same
time advance an evolutionary explanation.

The same applies to differential object marking (4B above), but I do not know any
evolutionary explanation of German word order – this is one of the many random
patterns that languages exhibit.

A structural explanation answers the question:

Why do speakers talk the way they do?

(because they have internalized a certain language system)

An evolutionary explanation answers the question:

Why are grammatical systems the way they are?
 7

(because certain systems are optimal, and adaptive

change favours optimal systems)

In a sense, both answers are explanatory/theoretical:

particular theories (p-theories)

general theories (g-theories) (see Haspelmath 2021b)

Each grammatical description is a theory of the language:

“A grammar of the language L

is essentially a theory of L.” (Chomsky 1957: 49)

Thus, it makes no sense to contrast theoretical and descriptive linguistics – descriptive

linguistics (which describes language structures) is usually a theoretical enterprise
(unless it has applied goals).

(or “theory” vs. “typology”, cf. blogpost: https://dlc.hypotheses.org/1915)

5.3. Evolutionary and biocognitive explanations are not incompatible

Finally, I claim that functional-evolutionary and biocognitive explanations are compatible.

Many authors have framed the approaches taken by different linguists in terms of

“functionalism” vs. “formalism” (e.g. Newmeyer 1998; Thomas 2020)

and indeed, we observe almost disjoint communities of scholars:

e.g. functional-adaptive: e.g. generative:

Alexandra Aikhenvald Mark Baker

Denis Creissels Jonathan Bobaljik
William Croft Guglielmo Cinque
Matthew Dryer Richard Kayne
Anna Siewierska Ian Roberts

However, I would like to claim:

These groups of scholars are divided merely by habits:
different notations and scientific styles, as well as different “hunches”

The approaches taken by them would be conceptually incompatible if they held the
following positions:

“functionalists:” – all general aspects of language structures

can be explained by functional-adaptive forces

– the difference between humans and other species has nothing to do

with domain-specific capacities
 8

“generativists:” – all general aspects of language structures

can be explained by innate grammatical knowledge

– functional-adaptive forces play no role in language structures

But these are caricatures, and in reality:

– most functionalists do accept that we are quite far away from

explaining everything in functional-adaptive terms

– and many of them also use complex formalisms

– all generativists do accept that some structural properties of languages

are functionally motivated

– and many of them even think that very little is innate

(Chomsky 2005)

Thus, in each domain, it is an empirical question what the best explanation is –

innate knowledge or functional-adaptive forces

Compare biology:
– some properties of organisms are explained by the makeup of DNA
(its discovery was a major breakthrough)
– but this has not made evolutionary-adaptive explanations superfluous

Organisms are constrained both by DNA and by evolutionary adaptation.

Linguistics:
– some properties of languags are explained by innate knowledge (UG)
(its discovery would be a major breakthrough)
– but this has not made evolutionary-adaptive explanations superfluous

Languages are constrained both by UG and by functional adaptation.

6. Differential object marking again

There are two competing possibilities for explaining differential object marking
patterns, like those in (8)-(10).

(8) Sakha (Baker 2015)

a. Masha salamaat-y sie-te.
Masha porridge-ACC eat-PST.3SG
‘Masha ate the porridge.’

b. Masha salamaat sie-te.

Masha porridge eat-PST.3SG
‘Masha ate porridge.’
 9

(9) Mandarin Chinese

a. 我把饺子吃了。
Wǒ bǎ jiǎozi chī-le.
I ACC dumpling eat-PFV
‘I ate the dumplings.’

b. 我吃饺子了
Wǒ chī-le jiǎozi.
I eat-PFV dumpling
‘I ate dumplings.’

(10) Spanish
a. Vi a la niña.
I.saw ACC the girl
‘I saw the girl.’

b. Vi la casa.
I.saw the house
‘I saw the house.’

• functional-adaptive: object marking occurs when it is most needed,

namely with definite and/or animate nominals
(which are less likely to be on object position)

• biocognitive: accusative case is assigned when the object NP is

“close enough” to the subject NP
– in Sakha and Chinese, the object moves out of the VP
and thus gets “closer” to the subject NP

The functional-adaptive explanation allows us to understand the universal finding

in (10) (see Haspelmath 2021a)

(10) Differential object marking universal

If a language has an asymmetric split in object marking
depending on some prominence scale, then the special marker
occurs on the referentially prominent P-argument.

prominence scales: animacy animate > inanimate

definiteness definite > indefinite
person 1st/2nd > 3rd

General observation: – referentially prominent arguments tend to be agents

– nonprominent arguments tend to be patients

The biocognitive explanation (Baker 2015) allows us to understand why definite

nominals show differential accusative case when they occur in a different position
from indefinite nominals.
 10

But:
– Baker (2015) does not extend his explanation to Chinese – he wants to limit it to
“case marking”, not to all kinds of markers that flag nominals.
– When the differential marking is conditioned by animacy (as in Spanish), Baker’s
biocognitive explanation makes no prediction.
– Even when differential object matking is conditioned by definiteness, it may not be
associated with a clear positional difference, as in Hebrew:

(11) Hebrew
a. David kara et ha-sefer.
David read ACC the-book
‘David read the book.’

b. David kara sefer.

David read book
‘David read a book.’

Thus: The evolutionary-functional explanation has much better empirical coverage

than the biocognitive-generative explanation.

Moreover, it appeals to highly general explanatory factors:

efficiency of coding (“marking occurs where it is most needed”) is merely
a special case of efficiency of action

So why do linguists keep pursuing biocognitive explanations of the generative type?

Proposed answer: because they conflate structural and biocognitive linguistics

7. The conflation of structural and biocognitive linguistics

What I said in §5 above was (simplified):

• structural explanations explain speaker behaviour (“language description”)

• evolutionary explanations explain general trends
(“why languages are the way they are”)
• biocognitive explanations explain the differences between species –
(“why chimpanzees don’t talk”)

Many linguists conflate structural and biocognitive explanations:

• structural explanations must make use of universal building blocks

Aissen (2003: 439)

“Optimality Theory (OT) provides a way, I believe, to reconcile the underlying

impulse of generative grammar to model syntax in a precise and rigorous
fashion with a conception of differential object marking (DOM) which is based on
prominence scales. The purpose of the present paper is to develop an approach to
this phenomenon within OT which is formal and at the same time expresses the
functional-typological understanding of DOM.”
 11

What does Aissen mean by – “modeling syntax”

– in a “precise and rigorous fashion”
– with a “formal approach” ?

Aissen seem to mean a “formal framework” that is the same for all languages –
the sort of notation that is often taught in syntax textbooks.

But it can be the same for all languages only if the framework is thought to be
innate – and if the framework is innate, then it also provides an explanation for
some of the limits on languages
(this is the Principles & Paramaters framework, e.g. Roberts 1996; Baker 2001).

Aissen’s Optimality Theory notation:

All the constraints and many of the constraint rankings are thought to be innate – this
makes it possible to both describe all languages in the same framework, and to
offer this framework as an explanation.

However:

– it is biologically very implausible that rich descriptive frameworks should be innate

(Chomsky 2005; Berwick & Chomsky 2016)

– Aissen (2003) wants to “capture” the insights of economy explanations,

but in her conflating approach, there is no link between economy/efficiency
and her constraint rankings

– while different languages often show intriguing similarities, there are often
many differences in detail (e.g. “definiteness” is subtly different in
Sakha, Chinese and Hebrew) – these need to be described anyway

– functional-evolutionary explanations often have a disparate range of effects –

for example, efficiency of argument coding affects objects, subjects, recipients,
patients, and a range of different prominence scales (Haspelmath 2021a);
these cannot possibly be captured by a single innate framework
 12

8. Concluding remarks

We all agree that linguists must describe (or “model”) the structures of languages in a
“precise and rigorous fashion”. In this sense, we are all structuralists (see blogpost
https://dlc.hypotheses.org/2356).

And unless we concentrate on applied goals, we are all theoretical linguists

(Haspelmath 2021b).

We all agree that formal methods of different kinds are often useful for linguistics.
But due to a complicated sociological process, the term has become associated with
Chomskyan generative linguistics (see blogpost https://dlc.hypotheses.org/1698).

And we all agree that

– some aspects of language structures are due to efficiency
(e.g. abbreviations such as “MPI” for “Max Planck Institute”)
– human minds and chimpanzee minds differ
in ways that gives humans language

So we really all agree that we need

– structural explanations (formal models of syntax)

– evolutionary explanations (adaptive accounts of efficiency effects)
– biocognitive explanations (explanations of species differences)

and they must be mutually compatible.

Is there an ideological difference between a functionalist and a generativist?

No, the difference primarily consists in scholarly traditions, and in “hunches”:

functionalist: the precise nature of the formal description is probably

not very important for understanding grammar

generativist: considerations of functional efficiency are probably

not very important for understanding grammar

For differential object marking (DOM), I have shown that

functional efficiency is very important,
because it explains many cross-linguistic tendencies (Haspelmath 2021a).

But – I do not have any particular “commitments” or “tenets” (Lakoff 1991)

– I do not “subscribe to” any particular framework (Haspelmath 2010)
– I do not say that “linguistics is about languages” (Comrie 1978)
rather than universal cognition (Hornstein 2019)

Given that scholars are humans, and humans live in traditions, we will probably
continue to work in such traditions (cf. blogpost: https://dlc.hypotheses.org/1741).

But we should not confuse our traditions and hunches with competing ideologies.
 13

References

Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language &
Linguistic Theory 21(3). 435–483.
Baker, Mark C. 2001. The atoms of language. New York: Basic Books.
Baker, Mark C. 2015. Case: Its principles and parameters. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Berwick, Robert C. & Chomsky, Noam. 2016. Why only us: Language and evolution.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bossong, Georg. 1991. Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In Kibbee,
Douglas & Wanner, Dieter (eds.), New analyses in Romance linguistics, 143–170.
Amsterdam: Benjamins. (https://www.rose.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:ffffffff-c23e-37d9-0000-
00006e1a9200/Bossong_80.pdf)
Chomsky, Noam A. 1957. Syntactic structures. ’s-Gravenhage: Mouton.
Chomsky, Noam A. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam A. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36(1). 1–22.
(doi:10.1162/0024389052993655)
Chomsky, Noam A. & Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper &
Row.
Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Linguistics is about languages. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 8(2).
221–236.
Fitch, W. Tecumseh. 2016. Reinventing linguistics – again (Review article of “What kind of
creatures are we?”, by Noam Chomsky). Inference: International Review of Science 2(3).
(https://inference-review.com/article/reinventing-linguistics-again)
Goldberg, Adele E. 2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences 7(5). 219–224.
Gordon, Matthew Kelly. 2016. Phonological typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haider, Hubert. 2010. The syntax of German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Framework-free grammatical theory. In Heine, Bernd & Narrog,
Heiko (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, 341–365. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2021a. Role-reference associations and the explanation of argument
coding splits. Linguistics 59(1). 123–174. (doi:10.1515/ling-2020-0252)
Haspelmath, Martin. 2021b. General linguistics must be based on universals (or
nonconventional aspects of language). Theoretical Linguistics (to appear).
(https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/005158)
Hornstein, Norbert. 2019. The stupendous success of the Minimalist Program. In Kertész,
András & Moravcsik, Edith & Rákosi, Csilla (eds.), Current approaches to syntax: A
comparative handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Lakoff, George. 1991. Cognitive versus generative linguistics: How commitments influence
results. Language and Communication 11(1/2). 53–62.
Liljencrants, Johan & Lindblom, Björn. 1972. Numerical simulation of vowel quality systems:
The role of perceptual contrast. Language 48(4). 839–862.
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1998. Language form and language function. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Roberts, Ian. 1996. Comparative syntax. London: Edward Arnold.
Thomas, Margaret. 2020. Formalism and functionalism in linguistics: The engineer and the
collector. New York: Routledge.