Grammar came later: Triality of patterning and the gradual evolution of language

•I provide an introduction to the general problem, along with a figure illustrating language as a confluence of factors, a nexus.•I lay out the issues, contrasting uniformitarianism (my view) with catastrophism (common Chomskyan view).•Next I move on to the nature of language as a cultural-communication tool.•I lay out the three major hypotheses on the evolution of language, taking as mine the idea that grammar followed symbols in its appearance and that grammar shows triple-articulation (gestures, symbols, and grammar), yet need not show recursion or hierarchical structures.•I then discuss the Peircean semiotic progression of indexes - > icons - > symbols + interpretants and how language followed this progression in its evolutionary history.•After the progression is discussed in detail I move on to the inherently recursive notion of semiosis and the use to which this is put in duality of patterning.•I then move to a discussion of gestures as the triple articulation.•From this I discuss in detail the formal components of language.•I then move to a discussion of the etic, the emic, culture and how they relate to language evolution.•After this my view is contrasted with the Chomskyan view.

This paper argues that language is primarily a tool for communication, not primarily a means of thought expression. It makes the case that language has its roots in intentional iconicity of Australopithecines and probably had reached the level of a G1 grammar (linear ordering of symbols + gestures) some 2.5 million years ago. Other forms of language, e.g. hierarchical, recursive grammars, are later embellishments that are neither necessary nor sufficient to have human language. The paper looks in detail at the evolution of culture among early hominins and how gap between indexes and icons to symbols might have been bridged. It then discusses the basic composition of phonology, morphology and syntax. The paper rejects the idea of a proto-language, as it also rejects the “X-men” view of language evolution/mutation proposed in Berwick and Chomsky (2016).