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. The evolution of syntaxIn their Essay [1], Martins and Boeckx (MB) take issue with our proposals about the evolution of language in our book Why Only Us (WOU) [2] and offer an alternative.As we will show, their critique is misguided and their alternative untenable.But first, it is useful to clearly delineate the areas of agreement and disagreement with them.First, in [1], MB do not question our assumption that the core properties of language are based on the combinatorial operation Merge, with the standard definition of its basic operation: binary set formation [1,2].Our disagreement has to do with evolution of this operation.More precisely, as we shall see, the disagreement has to do with steps they propose that immediately preceded the evolution of Merge.Second, we both agree that it is important to determine how Merge is implemented in the brain.In [2] pp.158-164, as illustrated in Fig 4.4-4.6,we advance a specific proposal about this neural "wiring," grounded on recent explicit neurological and comparative primate findings [3-5].MB do not challenge this proposal.We therefore put the matter of neural implementation aside here.Third, we both agree that it is important to determine how a Merge-based system is used, that is, how it is externalized in the sensory-motor system (typically, though not necessarily,
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 41 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.