All or nothing: No half-Merge and the evolution of syntax

Area of Science:

• Linguistics
• Evolutionary Biology
• Formal Language Theory
• Cognitive Science

Background:

• The evolution of human language is a complex field with ongoing debate.
• Martins and Boeckx proposed the "half-Merge fallacy" to argue against a single-step evolution of Merge, the fundamental operation in human language syntax.
• This perspective suggests Merge evolved incrementally rather than all at once.

Purpose of the Study:

• To refute the "half-Merge fallacy" as presented by Martins and Boeckx.
• To demonstrate critical flaws in their understanding of formal language theory and binary set formation.
• To challenge their proposed two-step evolutionary scenario for Merge.

Main Methods:

• Critical analysis of Martins and Boeckx's arguments regarding the evolution of Merge.
• Examination of the theoretical underpinnings of binary set formation and formal language theory.
• Evaluation of the proposed evolutionary scenario for language syntax development.

Main Results:

• The argument for the "half-Merge fallacy" is based on a misunderstanding of core concepts in formal language theory.
• Martins and Boeckx's proposed two-step evolutionary model for Merge is shown to be unworkable.
• There is no empirical or conceptual justification for decomposing binary set formation into separate evolutionary steps.

Conclusions:

• The "half-Merge fallacy" argument does not hold under scrutiny.
• The evolution of human language syntax, including Merge, likely involved numerous steps, but not necessarily a decomposition of Merge itself.
• While acknowledging the importance of brain implementation and multi-step language evolution, the specific proposal for a staged Merge evolution is rejected.