The Co-Evolution of Speech and Pragmatics

Salikoko S. MUFWENE, University of Chicago

Phylogenetically, languages appear to have evolved incrementally from nothing to modern complex systems over a long period of time. Thus one may expected the role of pragmatics to have decreased, conversely, as claimed by some students of language evolution (e.g., Ljiljana Progovac 2015, Evolutionary syntax; and Tom Scott-Phillips 2014, Speaking our minds). The logic behind this expectation is that languages as technologies capable of communicating rich loads of information explicitly and systematically have evolved from poor, primitive tools that depend heavily on context to increasingly richer, more nuanced, and complex systems that depend less on context for the interpretation of utterances. In other words, modern languages would make us less reliant on our natural mind-reading capacity, contrary to embryonic languages of, say, 200.000 years ago. However, reality shows that pragmatics itself has actually evolved to play a more complex role now than it ever did at the time when embryonic forms of modern languages emerged. According to some, such as Deidre Wilson & Dan Sperber (1992ff), we still rely heavily on the mind-reading capacity to interpret utterances in modern languages.

An important reason for this increased reliance on pragmatics is that there was less information to convey at the protolinguistic stage, in part because the hominine mental capacity was not yet as generative as it is today and human interactions were simpler. If the earliest stages of the evolution of spoken languages from animal-like vocalizations involved just naming, which drove the expansion of phonetic systems, communication may have started with child-like holophrases (Mufwene 2013). These do not require nuancing and finessing the expression of the meanings intended by the speaker. Few systematic pragmatic principles are involved.

In the earliest, primitive stages of the phylogenetic emergence of languages, there would have been no pressure to sometimes speak indirectly; nor may it have been necessary to choose between polite and impolite expressions, or between deferential, humbling, and neutral forms of address, as in languages such as Japanese and Korean. On the other hand, it is also useful to encode in modern languages special perspectives relative to the addressee in saying either I was coming to see you or I was going to see you (as made evident by Fillmore 1975). In addition, the context of communication bears on the interpretation of such seemingly simple constructions as I’m about to come in ways that do not apply to its counterpart I’m about to go. Interlocutors must also deal with implicatures, where alternative expressions may appear related but do not express exactly the same meanings. For instance, Jane is wearing a pink dress does not have the same meaning as Jane is wearing a pale red dress, no more than Peter killed his pet in relation to Peter caused his pet to die, although the longer expressions can be used to explain their shorter alternatives (McCawley 1979). Adult linguistic competence is assessed based on how one distinguishes between such expressions.

It appears that the more complex the encoding of meanings into expressions has become, the more complex the pragmatics of language use has evolved. Why is the verb sleep interpreted only one way in the baby slept with his mother but not in John slept with Mary when both arguments refer to adults? Even John slept with his mother may arouse a shock in some contexts but not in others! Why doesn’t the phrase sleep around lend itself to such ambiguities but not stand around or sit around? And why is it not appropriate in some cultures not to speak literally past a certain age? What’s so special with non-literal or indirect speech?

I will discuss these issues and others, which underscore the relevance of pragmatics in modern languages, from an evolutionary perspective.