Wacewicz Sławomir, Żywiczyński Przemysław
Center for Language Evolution Studies (CLES); Department of English, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Bojarskiego 1, Toruń, 87-100 Poland.
Biosemiotics. 2015;8(1):29-46. doi: 10.1007/s12304-014-9203-2. Epub 2014 Jul 19.
The set of design features developed by Charles Hockett in the 1950s and 1960s remains probably the most influential means of juxtaposing animal communication with human language. However, the general theoretical perspective of Hockett is largely incompatible with that of modern language evolution research. Consequently, we argue that his classificatory system-while useful for some descriptive purposes-is of very limited use as a theoretical framework for evolutionary linguistics. We see this incompatibility as related to the ontology of language, i.e. deriving from Hockett's interest in language as a product rather than a suite of sensorimotor, cognitive and social abilities that enable the use but also acquisition of language by biological creatures (the ). After a reconstruction of Hockett's views on design features, we raise two criticisms: and . Finally, referring to empirical data, we illustrate some of the problems resulting from Hockett's approach by addressing three specific points-namely , , and -and show how the change of perspective allows to overcome those difficulties.
查尔斯·霍凯特在20世纪50年代和60年代提出的一系列设计特征，可能仍然是将动物交流与人类语言进行对比的最具影响力的方式。然而，霍凯特的一般理论视角在很大程度上与现代语言进化研究的视角不相容。因此，我们认为他的分类系统——虽然在某些描述性目的上有用——作为进化语言学的理论框架，其用途非常有限。我们认为这种不相容与语言的本体论有关，即源于霍凯特对语言作为一种产物的兴趣，而不是将其视为一套感觉运动、认知和社会能力，这些能力不仅使生物能够使用语言，还能习得语言（此处原文括号内容缺失）。在重构了霍凯特关于设计特征的观点后，我们提出两点批评：（此处原文缺失）和（此处原文缺失）。最后，参考实证数据，我们通过阐述三个具体要点——即（此处原文缺失）、（此处原文缺失）和（此处原文缺失）——来说明霍凯特方法所导致的一些问题，并展示视角的转变如何能够克服这些困难。
