Why Are No Animal Communication Systems Simple Languages?

Abstract

Individuals of some animal species have been taught simple versions of human language despite their natural communication systems failing to rise to the level of a simple language. How is it, then, that some animals can master a version of language, yet none of them deploy this capacity in their own communication system? I first examine the key design features that are often used to evaluate language-like properties of natural animal communication systems. I then consider one candidate animal system, bird song, because it has several of the key design features or their precursors, including social learning and cultural transmission of their vocal signals. I conclude that although bird song communication is nuanced and complex, and has the acoustic potential for productivity, it is not productive – it cannot be used to say many different things. Finally, I discuss the debate over whether animal communication should be viewed as a cooperative information transmission process, as we typically view human language, or as a competitive process where signaler and receiver vie for control. The debate points to a necessary condition for the evolution of a simple language that has generally been overlooked: the degree of to which the interests of the signaler and receiver align. While strong cognitive and signal production mechanisms are necessary pre-adaptations for a simple language, they are not sufficient. Also necessary is the existence of identical or near-identical interests of signaler and receiver and a socio-ecology that requires high-level cooperation across a range of contexts. In the case of our hominid ancestors, these contexts included hunting, gathering, child care and, perhaps, warfare. I argue that the key condition for the evolution of human language was the extreme interdependency that existed among unrelated individuals in the hunter-gatherer societies of our hominid ancestors. This extreme interdependency produced multiple prosocial adaptations for effective intragroup cooperation, which in partnership with advanced cognitive abilities, set the stage for the evolution of language.

Human Self‐Domestication and the Evolution of Pragmatics

“…As maintained by proponents of the manipulative model of communication (Dawkins & Krebs, 1978;Krebs & Dawkins, 1984;Maynard Smith & Harper, 2003;Owren, Rendall, & Ryan, 2010), "communication is said to occur when an animal, the actor, does something which appears to be the result of selection to influence the sense organs of another animal, the reactor, so that the reactor's behavior changes to the advantage of the actor" (Dawkins and Kreb, 1978 p. 283; for an analysis of the receiver manipulation of the sender, cf. Beecher, 2021). In this model, the persuasive role of communication is commonly aimed at coping with the aggressive behavior of the aggressors toward the victims (Hawhee, 2011(Hawhee, , 2017Kennedy, 1992Kennedy, , 1998Parrish, 2013Parrish, , 2014.…”

“…The continuous exchange of roles between actors and reactors enhances the constructive character of human conversation. Even when the speakers defend opposite points of view, the conversational exchange never leaves the interlocutors at the point from which they started: Conversation lends to communication a directional, progressive, and cumulative character (Adornetti, 2015;Ferretti & Adornetti, 2012, 2021Ferretti et al, submitted). Fusaroli, Rączaszek-Leonardi, and Tylén (2014) considered dialogue as a dynamical system governed by the complementary roles of interlocutors.…”

Human self-domestication and the evolution of pragmatics

“…The continuous exchange of roles between actors and reactors enhances the constructive character of human conversation. Even when the speakers defend opposite points of view, the conversational exchange never leaves the interlocutors at the point from which they started: Conversation lends to communication a directional, progressive, and cumulative character (Adornetti, 2015;Ferretti & Adornetti, 2012, 2021Ferretti et al, submitted). Fusaroli, R ączaszek-Leonardi, and Tylén (2014) considered dialogue as a dynamical system governed by the complementary roles of interlocutors.…”

Commentary: Why Are no Animal Communication Systems Simple Languages?

“…In the title of his paper, Beecher (2021) asks "Why Are No Animal Communication Systems Simple Languages?" In his answer to this question, he identifies two necessary conditions for developing a language-like communication system: "strong cognitive and signal production mechanisms" and a low level of conflict of interests between the communicators.…”