1. Sexual Display as a Syntactical Vehicle: The Evolution of Syntax in Birdsong and Human Language through Sexual Selection Kazuo Okanoya Embedded Song Chart The Bengalese Finch and the White Tail Munia Talking with the Animals? Abstract Introduction Modifying the Headers Diagrams, Visuals, and Examples Charts & Graphs Presenters Other Opinions and Studies Intro to Psycholinguistics October 26 th , 2006 Article Presentation http://www.insightmatters.com/FinchNoise.htm “ Sexual selection depends on the success of certain individuals over others of the same sex, in relation to the propagation of the species; while natural selection depends on the success of both sexes, at all ages, in relation to the general conditions of life.” — Charles Darwin , 1871 Finite-state grammar generates sentences by going directly from left to right: “ an INITIAL ELEMENT is selected, and thereafter the possibilities of occurrence of all other elements are wholly determined by the nature of the elements preceding them.” A sentence that can be generated by finite-state grammar : ” John saw the cat.” A sentence that CANNOT be generated by finite-state grammar : “ John, who saw the cat, is coming.” Structure of a Hypothetical Bengalese Finch song: Four parts A, B,C, D, all containing many notes. song variation 1: ABABBBABABC song variation 2: ABABBAAABAD For many years the study of human language evolution has been viewed through the lens of either Darwin or Chomsky. Okanoya uses correlating research in both birds and humans to support his hypothesis that Darwin’s gradual evolution and Chomsky’s catastrophism can be reconciled. The basis for Okanoya’s argument comes from the proposition that the evolution of syntax through sexual display was gradual and the addition of semantic value to the existing syntactical form was catastrophic. The article suggests that after syntax was already in place after sexual selection it then became a way of expressing. It is assumed that there was no inherent survival significance in the evolution of syntax and this can help answer the question as to why humans have language capabilities that other animals do not. Eventually the article explains the difference between the human ability to divorce signals from their environment and use them to refer to something outside of its original context. Brendan Ford Priya Mishra Megs Madigan LING 301 “ It is now possible to answer the question, can animals talk? If in order to qualify as ‘talkers’ they [animals] have to utilize all the design characteristics of human language ‘naturally,’ the answer is clearly ‘no.’ Some animals possess some of the features. Bird song has duality, and bee dancing has some degree of displacement. But as far as we know, no animal communication system has duality and displacement. No animal system can be proved to have semanticity or to use structure-dependent operations. Above all, no animal can communicate creatively with another animal” (Aitchison 34).