The interaction engine: cuteness selection and the evolution of the interactional base for language

Abstract

The deep structural diversity of languages suggests that our language capacities are not based on any single template but rather on an underlying ability and motivation for infants to acquire a culturally transmitted system. The hypothesis is that this ability has an interactional base that has discernable precursors in other primates. In this paper, I explore a specific evolutionary route for the most puzzling aspect of this interactional base in humans, namely the development of an empathetic intentional stance. The route involves a generalization of mother–infant interaction patterns to all adults via a process (cuteness selection) analogous to, but distinct from, RA Fisher's runaway sexual selection. This provides a cornerstone for the carrying capacity for language. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Revisiting the human ‘interaction engine’: comparative approaches to social action coordination’.

Revisiting the human ‘interaction engine’: comparative approaches to social action coordination

“…The question of how and why language emerged in the human lineage has been of interest to various disciplines and is one of contemporary science's great puzzles. One particularly influential hypothesis suggests that the ecological niche of language use is face-to-face interaction [ 1 – 3 ]. Given that humans spend about half of their waking hours in close-range communicative interactions with lengthy and mutually engaging sequence structures, our species' interaction intensity seems to be unmatched in the animal kingdom [ 4 ].…”

“…Although an exhaustive list of the interaction engine's elements seems to be missing, most researchers would probably agree that they relate to four major components [ 1 – 3 , 11 ]: multimodality (here summarized as the ability to communicate through different sensory channels (visual, auditory, acoustic) and organs (e.g. hands or mouth), [ 6 , 12 ]), sequence organization (communicative acts that have a contingent relationship with the previous and following act, presuming a normative obligation to deliver appropriate responses at the next best occasion, [ 13 , 14 ]), turn-taking (rapid turns at talking with minimal response gaps between conversational turns, [ 15 , 16 ]) and intentionality (the ability to communicate and respond to intentions not behaviours, [ 1 , 3 ]). As such, the interaction engine's ingredients are not some distinct brain modules but describe distinct principles of human interaction that are universally observed across the world's cultures [ 1 ], and for which scientific enquiry of their biological origins is warranted.…”

“…The human interaction engine was originally introduced as the interactional base of language, composed of different layers, each having different phylogenetic and ontogenetic origins [ 1 ]. In the first contribution of this theme issue, Stephen Levinson [ 3 ] recapitulates his influential theory from nearly two decades ago, summarizing four fundamental components of this multi-layered system, comprising multimodality, turn-taking, sequential contingency and intention recognition. Arguing that the first three features have clear precursors in the communicative behaviour of other primates, for the fourth and least understood component, intention recognition, he explores a new evolutionary route: cuteness selection .…”

“…It is evident that humans are extraordinary skillful in expressing and recognizing intentions. As Levinson [ 3 ] notes, it does not take much for you to understand that you still have breakfast on your face when I rub my chin with an indicative look during breakfast. Humans are intention-readers and human communication is in itself a context-dependent process of social inference [ 9 ].…”

“…Yet, despite the relevance of ostensive–inferential communication in human evolution [ 3 , 44 ], it remains among one of the most obscure features of the interaction engine. This is partly due to the inherent difficulty of operationalizing such concepts for comparative research.…”