Writing, Graphic Codes, and Asynchronous Communication

Abstract

We present a theoretical framework bearing on the evolution of written communication. We analyze writing as a special kind of graphic code. Like languages, graphic codes consist of stable, conventional mappings between symbols and meanings, but (unlike spoken or signed languages) their symbols consist of enduring images. This gives them the unique capacity to transmit information in one go across time and space. Yet this capacity usually remains quite unexploited, because most graphic codes are insufficiently informative. They may only be used for mnemonic purposes or as props for oral communication in real‐time encounters. Writing systems, unlike other graphic codes, work by encoding a natural language. This allows them to support asynchronous communication in a more powerful and versatile way than any other graphic code. Yet, writing systems will not automatically unlock the capacity to communicate asynchronously. We argue that this capacity is a rarity in non‐literate societies, and not so frequent even in literate ones. Asynchronous communication is intrinsically inefficient because asynchrony constrains the amount of information that the interlocutors share and limits possibilities for repair. This would explain why synchronous, face‐to‐face communication always fosters the development of sophisticated codes (natural languages), but similar codes for asynchronous communication evolve with more difficulties. It also implies that writing cannot have evolved, at first, for supporting asynchronous communication.

Is the cultural evolution of technology cumulative or combinatorial?

“…However, when factoring in the application of technologies to novel problems, then imperfect transmission need not be a barrier to long-term problem-solving [18,35]. The diffusion of writing systems to nonliterate groups is a good example of this: successful transmission rests on understanding and then reconstructing the core concept of writing, not accurately copying the features of other systems [39] (also see, stimulus diffusion [40]). Second, as long argued [27,[41][42][43], biological and technological evolution differ in important ways.…”

Afterword: Tough Questions; Hard Problems; Incremental Progress

“…But as common observation and Caldwell's experiments suggest, communication often enhances the flow of information from the more to the less informed, and language is a superb communicative tool. The paper by Morin, Kelly, and Winters both expands on, and narrows down, this rather banal point (Morin, Kelly, & Winters, ). They expand it by considering a broader range of signaling systems.…”

What Early Sapiens Cognition Can Teach Us: Untangling Cultural Influences on Human Cognition Across Time

“…The classic example of a cultural innovation with a profound impact on cognition is literacy. Learning to read and write not only facilitates the accumulation and transmission of knowledge on a grand new scale (Huettig and Mishra, 2014;Morin et al, 2018), but also rewires the individual brain (Dehaene and Cohen, 2007). When extrapolating to past cognition, we therefore need to discount the neural and cognitive changes brought about by cultural innovations such as literacy and, more generally, we need a more exhaustive overview of the range of changes to be taken into account.…”