Symbol and Structure: A Comprehensive Framework for Language Evolution

Bickerton, Derek

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199244843.003.0005

Cited by 110 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Another plausible candidate seems to be the ability to build symbolic representations [53] (not necessarily available in other serialized domains such as prosody and motor sequencing).…”

Section: What Is Recursion Good For?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Distinctive signatures of recursion

Martins

2012

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although recursion has been hypothesized to be a necessary capacity for the evolution of language, the multiplicity of definitions being used has undermined the broader interpretation of empirical results. I propose that only a definition focused on representational abilities allows the prediction of specific behavioural traits that enable us to distinguish recursion from non-recursive iteration and from hierarchical embedding: only subjects able to represent recursion, i.e. to represent different hierarchical dependencies (related by parenthood) with the same set of rules, are able to generalize and produce new levels of embedding beyond those specified a priori (in the algorithm or in the input). The ability to use such representations may be advantageous in several domains: action sequencing, problem-solving, spatial navigation, social navigation and for the emergence of conventionalized communication systems. The ability to represent contiguous hierarchical levels with the same rules may lead subjects to expect unknown levels and constituents to behave similarly, and this prior knowledge may bias learning positively. Finally, a new paradigm to test for recursion is presented. Preliminary results suggest that the ability to represent recursion in the spatial domain recruits both visual and verbal resources. Implications regarding language evolution are discussed.

show abstract

“…Another plausible candidate seems to be the ability to build symbolic representations [53] (not necessarily available in other serialized domains such as prosody and motor sequencing).…”

Section: What Is Recursion Good For?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Distinctive signatures of recursion

Martins

2012

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although there are deep and ongoing controversies over the precise nature of human language (Chomsky, 1995;Hauser, Chomsky, and Fitch, 2002;Jackendoff, 2002;Langacker, 1987;Tomasello, 2003a), the wider evolutionary problem is almost always, even by otherwise bitter opponents (e.g. Bickerton, 2003;Tomasello, 2003b), operationalised into two distinct subproblems, namely the emergence of symbolism and the emergence of grammar. Tomasello suggests, for instance, that: [l]anguage is a complex outcome of human cognitive and social processes taking place in evolutionary, historical and ontogenetic time.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The pivotal role of metaphor in the evolution of human language

Smith¹,

Höfler²

2015

Metaphor and Metonymy Across Time and Cultures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is broad agreement among evolutionary linguists that the emergence of human language, as opposed to other primate communication systems, is characterised by two key phenomena: the use of symbols, and the use of grammatical structure (Tomasello 2003). In this paper, we show that these two defining aspects of language actually emerge from the same set of underlying cognitive mechanisms within the context of ostensive-inferential communication. We take an avowedly cognitive approach to the role of metaphor in language change, setting out how general capacities such as the recognition of common ground, the inference of meaning from context, and the memorisation of language usage, can together lead to the conventionalisation of metaphors, and thence to systematic changes in language structure, including the development of grammatical linguistic units from formerly meaningful elements through grammaticalisation (Hoefler and Smith 2009). We show that the relevant cognitive competences are general-purpose mechanisms which are crucially not specific to language; they also underpin non-linguistic communication, where the same processes lead to the emergence of apparently arbitrary symbols.

show abstract

“…The origin of grammaticality in the Homo lineage may fall within the early Pleistocene threshold for syntax emergence (around 1.8 million years ago) (Bickerton 2003), an evolutionary turning point towards the complexification of the hominid vocal apparatus that likely enabled an increase in symbolic repertoire, the gradual emergence of composite phonemes and words, and probably syntax by the Middle Paleolithic (Lieberman, Crelin 1971;Arensburg, Tillier et al 1989;Arensburg, Tillier 1991). This process may have involved inter-specific interactions not yet considered.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Symbols are not uniquely human

Ribeiro¹,

Loula

Araújo³

et al. 2007

Biosystems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Modern semiotics is a branch of logics that formally defines symbol-based communication. In recent years, the semiotic classification of signs has been invoked to support the notion that symbols are uniquely human. Here we show that alarm-calls such as those used by African vervet monkeys (Cercopithecus aethiops), logically satisfy the semiotic definition of symbol. We also show that the acquisition of vocal symbols in vervet monkeys can be successfully simulated by a computer program based on minimal semiotic and neurobiological constraints. The simulations indicate that learning depends on the tutor-predator ratio, and that apprenticegenerated auditory mistakes in vocal symbol interpretation have little effect on the learning rates of apprentices (up to 80% of mistakes are tolerated). In contrast, just 10% of apprentice-generated visual mistakes in predator identification will prevent any vocal symbol to be correctly associated with a predator call in a stable manner.Tutor unreliability was also deleterious to vocal symbol learning: a mere 5% of "lying" tutors were able to completely disrupt symbol learning, invariably leading to the acquisition of incorrect associations by apprentices.Our investigation corroborates the existence of vocal symbols in a non-human species, and indicates that symbolic competence emerges spontaneously from classical associative learning mechanisms when the conditioned stimuli are self-generated, arbitrary and socially efficacious. We propose that more exclusive properties of human language, such as syntax, may derive from the evolution of higher-order domains for neural association, more removed from both the sensory input and the motor output, able to support the gradual complexification of grammatical categories into syntax.

show abstract

Symbol and Structure: A Comprehensive Framework for Language Evolution

Cited by 110 publications

References 19 publications

Distinctive signatures of recursion

Distinctive signatures of recursion

The pivotal role of metaphor in the evolution of human language

Symbols are not uniquely human

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About