This volume, and in general this moment in the history of science, is calling for us linguists, and especially those of us who have worked in Minimalism, to characterize what it is that our approach has discovered, that we want to embrace and move forward with, and what it is that we need to discard. There is plenty in both categories, and it is precisely the considerations of biology (e.g. language evolution) that can help us weed out the burdensome, damaging (...) aspects of this approach. Too often we linguists look down upon the study of language evolution as some kind of marginal topic that need not concern “true” linguists, and we prefer to just wait until geneticists, biologists, and neuroscientists figure it all out. And yet, it is only linguists who can put forward specific, linguistically informed hypotheses that can be subjected to interdisciplinary testing. The emphasis here is on specific, falsifiable hypotheses, rather than some vague assertions that cannot be subjected to falsification. It is true that many such specific hypotheses will be proven wrong, but after all, the nature of the scientific process is simply to narrow down the range of possibilities. My focus here is on a few influential assumptions/postulates in Minimalism that are particularly harmful in establishing meaningful links between language and biology, and which, both on this ground, and based on more careful linguistic considerations, should be abandoned. I will also point to certain postulates... (shrink)

We propose that human self-domestication favored the emergence of a less aggressive phenotype in our species, more precisely phenotype prone to replace (reactive) physical aggression with verbal aggression. In turn, the (gradual) transition to verbal aggression and to more sophisticated forms of verbal behavior favored self-domestication, with the two processes engaged in a reinforcing feedback loop, considering that verbal behavior entails not only less violence and better survival, but also more opportunities to interact longer and socialize with more conspecifics, ultimately (...) enabling the emergence of more complex forms of language. Whereas in the case of self-domestication sexual selection has been proposed to work against physical aggression traits, in the case of verbal insult the selection has been proposed to work in favor of verbal aggression. The tension between these two seemingly opposing forces gets resolved/alleviated by a tendency to replace physical aggression with verbal aggression, and with verbal behavior more generally. This also helps solve the paradox of the Self Domestication Hypothesis regarding aggression, more precisely why aggression in humans has been reduced only when it comes to reactive aggression, but not when it comes to proactive aggression, the latter exhibiting an increase with the advent of modern language. We postulate that this feedback loop was particularly important during the time period before 50 kya, arguably between 200 kya and 50 kya, when humans were not fully modern, neither in terms of their skull/brain morphology and their behavior/culture, nor in terms of their self-domestication. The novelty of our approach lies (i) in giving an active role to early forms of language in interacting with self-domestication processes; (ii) in providing specific linguistic details and functions of this early stage of grammar (including insult and humor); (iii) in supplying neurobiological, ontogenetic, and clinical evidence of a link between (reactive) aggression and (reactive) verbal behavior; (iv) in identifying a variety of proxies of the earlier stages in evolution among cognitive disorders; and (v) in identifying specific points of contact and mutual reinforcement between these two processes (self-domestication and early language evolution), including reduction in physical aggression and stress/tension, as well as sexual selection. (shrink)