SEMIOGENESIS AS A CONTINUOUS, NOT A DISCRETE PHENOMENON

This commentary confronts one of the central tenets advanced in Wilkin s & Wakefield's target article: ''language is unlikely to have evolved directly from communication-based precursors, nor is it likely to hav e been based on those structures that subserve communication.'' By ado pting a very narrow perspective on language, the authors have effectiv ely limited discussion of earlier linguistic capabilities thought to b e at least facilitative of, if not prerequisite to language defined as a ''formal grammatical system.'' An alternative conceptualization for describing semiogenesis is offered.