What genes can't learn about language

Berwick, Robert C.

doi:10.1073/pnas.0812871106

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Historical studies show that languages evolve rapidly (Fitch, 2007; Lieberman et al., 2007; Pagel et al., 2007). A recent computer simulation indicates that language appears like a moving target to biological evolution, changing too quickly for linguistic innovations to be nativized (Berwick, 2009; Chater, Reali, & Christiansen, 2009). Thus, cultural processes must play a major role in language evolution.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Interactive Evolution of Human Communication Systems

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper compares two explanations of the process by which human communication systems evolve: iterated learning and social collaboration. It then reports an experiment testing the social collaboration account. Participants engaged in a graphical communication task either as a member of a community, where they interacted with seven different partners drawn from the same pool, or as a member of an isolated pair, where they interacted with the same partner across the same number of games. Participants' horizontal, pair-wise interactions led ''bottom up'' to the creation of an effective and efficient shared sign system in the community condition. Furthermore, the communityevolved sign systems were as effective and efficient as the local sign systems developed by isolated pairs. Finally, and as predicted by a social collaboration account, and not by an iterated learning account, interaction was critical to the creation of shared sign systems, with different isolated pairs establishing different local sign systems and different communities establishing different global sign systems.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Interactive Evolution of Human Communication Systems

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…He appears to have abandoned earlier proposals about much more language‐specific cognitive machinery (e.g., Chomsky, , ). Researchers investigating language from a functional perspective (generally diametrically opposed to the generative endeavor) have remarkably similar views on these matters (pointed out by Berwick, ). A typical example is Evans and Levinson (), where it is argued that there appears to be no linguistic universals.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Modeling Co‐evolution of Speech and Biology

Boer

2016

Topics in Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two computer simulations are investigated that model interaction of cultural evolution of language and biological evolution of adaptations to language. Both are agent-based models in which a population of agents imitates each other using realistic vowels. The agents evolve under selective pressure for good imitation. In one model, the evolution of the vocal tract is modeled; in the other, a cognitive mechanism for perceiving speech accurately is modeled. In both cases, biological adaptations to using and learning speech evolve, even though the system of speech sounds itself changes at a more rapid time scale than biological evolution. However, the fact that the available acoustic space is used maximally (a self-organized result of cultural evolution) is constant, and therefore biological evolution does have a stable target. This work shows that when cultural and biological traits are continuous, their co-evolution may lead to cognitive adaptations that are strong enough to detect empirically.

show abstract

“…Yet, in so doing they fail to fully explore the consequences of this claim. As Berwick ( 2009 ) already pointed out, an independent movement in theoretical linguistics has come to strikingly similar conclusions and has carried on where Christiansen and Müller ( 2015 ) seemingly chose to leave off.…”

mentioning

confidence: 77%

“…The corresponding conclusion is that natural languages do not evolve in a (neo-)Darwinian sense, instead they change (Chomsky, 2011 ) within a rather narrow framework of possible variation provided by UG (currently best captured by the concept of parametric variation; see Baker, 2001 ). This fixed framework concerns linguistic features as opposed to their culturally determined values (Berwick, 2009 ), a distinction that the authors fail to make. Thus, accepting that the linguistic genotype is fixed (Anderson and Lightfoot, 2000 ; Berwick et al, 2013 ; Hauser et al, 2014 ), as it would seem that Christiansen and Müller ( 2015 ) do, language change becomes irrelevant for the study of the phylogeny of FL, and the role of “cultural evolution” is rendered even more obscure.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Commentary: Cultural recycling of neural substrates during language evolution and development

Trettenbrein

2015

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What genes can't learn about language

Cited by 7 publications

References 15 publications

The Interactive Evolution of Human Communication Systems

The Interactive Evolution of Human Communication Systems

Modeling Co‐evolution of Speech and Biology

Commentary: Cultural recycling of neural substrates during language evolution and development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About