Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T07:46:38.757Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 4 - Evolving Language in Interaction

from Part I - Language and Its Power

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 July 2023

Anna M. Borghi
Anna M. Borghi
Affiliation:
University of Rome
Get access

Summary

Chapter 4 shows how language has evolved through interaction. The first part focuses on the role that hand gestures, mouth movements, vocal actions, and the interplay of different modalities, together with the development of imitation capabilities, play in the evolution of language. In the second part, I show how language has evolved from interaction among people who progressively converged on the same meanings. I illustrate several new interdisciplinary approaches and methods adopted to study the emergence and evolution of language in dyads, groups, and populations, from agent-based simulations to experimental semiotics to culturomic approaches. Finally, I show how a combination of iconicity and arbitrariness might drive the cultural evolution of language. Iconic words, that is, words with a resemblance between form and meaning (e.g., "boom"), will emerge first, followed by more abstract ones, which are grounded in other words.

Keywords

language evolutiongesturesagent-based simulationsexperimental semioticsculturomicslanguage iconicitylanguage arbitrariness
Type
Chapter
Information
The Freedom of Words
Abstractness and the Power of Language
 , pp. 125 - 150
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acerbi, A., Lampos, V., Garnett, P., & Bentley, R. A. (2013). The expression of emotions in 20th century books. PLoS ONE, 8(3), e59030.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aiden, E. L., Pickett, J. P., & Michel, J.-B. (2011). Culturomics – Response. Science, 332(6025), 36–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, M. L. (2014). After phrenology: Neural reuse and the interactive brain. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Arbib, M. A. (2008). From grasp to language: Embodied concepts and the challenge of abstraction. Journal of Physiology, Paris, 102(1–3), 4–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphysparis.2008.03.001Google Scholar
Atran, S., & Medin, D. L. (2008). The native mind and the cultural construction of nature. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baronchelli, A., Gong, T., Puglisi, A., & Loreto, V. (2010). Modeling the emergence of universality in color naming patterns. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(6), 2403–2407. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0908533107CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baronchelli, A., Loreto, V., & Steels, L. (2008). In-depth analysis of the Naming Game dynamics: The homogeneous mixing case. International Journal of Modern Physics C, 19(05), 785–812.Google Scholar
Bellagamba, F., Borghi, A. M., Mazzuca, C., Pecora, G., Ferrara, F., & Fogel, A. (2021). Abstractness emerges progressively over the second year of life. Scientific Reports, 12, 20940. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-25426-5Google Scholar
Bernardis, P., & Gentilucci, M. (2006). Speech and gesture share the same communication system. Neuropsychologia, 44(2), 178–190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bobek, E., & Tversky, B. (2016). Creating visual explanations improves learning. Cognitive research: Principles and implications, 1(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
Bonini, L., Rotunno, C., Arcuri, E., & Gallese, V. (2022). Mirror neurons 30 years later: Implications and applications. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26(9).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borghi, A. M. (2022). Concepts for which we need others more: The case of abstract concepts. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 31(3), 238–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borghi, A. M., & Cangelosi, A. (2014). Action and language integration: From humans to cognitive robots. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6(3), 344–358. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12103CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brysbaert, M., Warriner, A. B., & Kuperman, V. (2014). Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 46(3), 904–911. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0403-5Google Scholar
Cangelosi, A., & Parisi, D. (2012). Simulating the evolution of language. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2013). Flexible and fast: Linguistic shortcut affects both shallow and deep conceptual processing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(3), 542–550. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423–012-0368-xGoogle Scholar
Corballis, M. C. (2010). Mirror neurons and the evolution of language. Brain and Language, 112(1), 25–35.Google Scholar
Ćwiek, A., Fuchs, S., Draxler, C., Asu, E. L., Dediu, D., Hiovain, K., … Perlman, M. (2021). Novel vocalizations are understood across cultures. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 10108. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598–021-89445-4Google Scholar
Deroy, O. (2022). Olfactory abstraction : A communicative and metacognitive account. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 378.Google Scholar
De Saussure, F. (2011). Course in general linguistics. Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, M., Blasi, D. E., Lupyan, G., Christiansen, M. H., & Monaghan, P. (2015). Arbitrariness, iconicity, and systematicity in language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(10), 603–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.013Google Scholar
Dingemanse, M., Perlman, M., & Perniss, P. (2020). Construals of iconicity: Experimental approaches to form–meaning resemblances in language. Language and Cognition, 12(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
Dunbar, R. I. (1996). Groups, gossip, and the evolution of language. In Schmitt, A., Atzwanger, K., Grammer, K., & Schäfer, K., eds., New aspects of human ethology. Springer, pp. 77–89.Google Scholar
Fay, N., Walker, B., Swoboda, N., Umata, I., Fukaya, T., Katagiri, Y., & Garrod, S. (2018). Universal principles of human communication: Preliminary evidence from a cross-cultural communication game. Cognitive Science, 42(7), 2397–2413. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12664Google Scholar
Ferrari, P. F., Gallese, V., Rizzolatti, G., & Fogassi, L. (2003). Mirror neurons responding to the observation of ingestive and communicative mouth actions in the monkey ventral premotor cortex. European Journal of Neuroscience, 17(8), 1703–1714.Google Scholar
Flaherty, M., Goldin-Meadow, S., Senghas, A., Coppola, M., & Gleitman, L. (2014). Language from gesture? Emergent transitivity marking in Nicaraguan Sign Language. The Evolution of Language: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference, Vienna, April 14–17, eds., Cartmill, E. A., Roberts, S., Lyn, H., & Cornish, H.. World Scientific, pp. 439–440. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814603638_0083Google Scholar
Flumini, A., Ranzini, M., & Borghi, A. M. (2014). Nomina sunt consequentia rerum – Sound–shape correspondences with every-day objects figures. Journal of Memory and Language 76, 47–60.Google Scholar
Fogassi, L., & Ferrari, P. F. (2007). Mirror neurons and the evolution of embodied language. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(3), 136–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00491.xGoogle Scholar
Gallese, V. (2008). Mirror neurons and the social nature of language: The neural exploitation hypothesis. Social Neuroscience, 3(3–4), 317–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470910701563608Google Scholar
Gallese, V., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., & Rizzolatti, G. (1996). Action recognition in the premotor cortex. Brain, 119(2), 593–609.Google Scholar
Garrod, S., Fay, N., Lee, J., Oberlander, J., & MacLeod, T. (2007). Foundations of representation: Where might graphical symbol systems come from? Cognitive Science, 31(6), 961–987. https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210701703659Google Scholar
Gentilucci, M. (2003). Grasp observation influences speech production. European Journal of Neuroscience, 17(1), 179–184.Google Scholar
Gentilucci, M., Benuzzi, F., Gangitano, M., & Grimaldi, S. (2001). Grasp with hand and mouth: A kinematic study on healthy subjects. Journal of Neurophysiology, 86(4), 1685–1699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentilucci, M. & Campione, G C. (2012). From action to speech. In Coello, Y. & Bartol, A., eds., Language and action in cognitive neuroscience Psychology Press, pp. 77–98.Google Scholar
Gentilucci, M., & Corballis, M. C. (2006). From manual gesture to speech: A gradual transition. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 30(7), 949–960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2006.02.004Google Scholar
Gentilucci, M., Stefanini, S., Roy, A. C., & Santunione, P. (2004). Action observation and speech production: Study on children and adults. Neuropsychologia, 42(11), 1554–1567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentilucci, M., & Dalla Volta, R. (2008). spoken language and arm gestures are controlled by the same motor control system. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(6), 944–957. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210701625683Google Scholar
Gibson, E., Futrell, R., Piantadosi, S. P., Dautriche, I., Mahowald, K., Bergen, L., & Levy, R. (2019). How efficiency shapes human language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(5), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.02.003Google Scholar
Gilead, M., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2020). Above and beyond the concrete: The diverse representational substrates of the predictive brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 43.Google Scholar
Goodman, N. D., & Frank, M. C. (2016). Pragmatic language interpretation as probabilistic inference. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(11), 818–829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.08.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L., eds., Syntax and semantics, vol. 3: Speech acts. Brill, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
Guilbeault, D., Baronchelli, A., & Centola, D. (2021). Experimental evidence for scale-induced category convergence across populations. Nature Communications, 12(1), 327. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467–020-20037-yGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, W. L., Leskovec, J., & Jurafsky, D. (2016). Diachronic word embeddings reveal statistical laws of semantic change. arXiv, abs/1605.09096.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2020). Human linguisticality and the building blocks of languages. Frontiers in Psychology, 3056.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (1991). Language universals in relation to acquisition and change: A tribute to Roman Jakobson. New Vistas in Grammar: Invariance and Variation, 49, 473–493.Google Scholar
Hay, J., & Bauer, L. (2007). Phoneme inventory size and population size. Language, 83(2), 388–400. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2007.0071Google Scholar
Hills, T. T., & Adelman, J. S. (2015). Recent evolution of learnability in American English from 1800 to 2000. Cognition, 143, 87–92.Google Scholar
Kay, P., Berlin, B., Maffi, L., Merrifield, W. R., & Cook, R. (2009). The World Color Survey. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Lewis, M., Colunga, E., & Lupyan, G. (2021). Superordinate word knowledge predicts longitudinal vocabulary growth. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 43(43), 321–326.Google Scholar
Lievers, F. S., Bolognesi, M., & Winter, B. (2021). The linguistic dimensions of concrete and abstract concepts: Lexical category, morphological structure, countability, and etymology. Cognitive Linguistics, 32, 641–640.Google Scholar
Loreto, V., & Steels, L. (2007). Emergence of language. Nature Physics, 3(11), 758–760. https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupyan, G., & Dale, R. (2010). Language structure is partly determined by social structure. PLoS ONE, 5(1), e8559. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0008559Google Scholar
Lupyan, G., & Dale, R. (2016). Why are there different languages? The role of adaptation in linguistic diversity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(9), 649–660.Google Scholar
Lupyan, G., & Winter, B. (2018). Language is more abstract than you think, or, why aren’t languages more iconic? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 373(1752). https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0137Google Scholar
MacNeilage, P. F. (1998). The frame/content theory of evolution of speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21(4), 499–511.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Malt, B. C. (1995). Category coherence in cross-cultural perspective. Cognitive Psychology, 29(2), 85–148.Google Scholar
Maurer, D., Pathman, T., & Mondloch, C. J. (2006). The shape of boubas: Sound–shape correspondences in toddlers and adults. Developmental Science, 9(3), 316–322.Google Scholar
Meir, I., & Tkachman, O. (2018). Iconicity. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics, online. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.343Google Scholar
Michel, J.-B., Shen, Y. K., Aiden, A. P., Veres, A., Gray, M. K., Team, G. B., … Norvig, P. (2011). Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books. Science, 331(6014), 176–182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Monaghan, P., Chater, N., & Christiansen, M. H. (2005). The differential role of phonological and distributional cues in grammatical categorisation. Cognition, 96(2), 143–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.09.001Google Scholar
Morford, J. P. (1996). Insights to language from the study of gesture: A review of research on the gestural communication of non-signing deaf people. Language & Communication, 16(2), 165–178.Google Scholar
Morin, O., & Acerbi, A. (2017). Birth of the cool: A two-centuries decline in emotional expression in Anglophone fiction. Cognition and Emotion, 31(8), 1663–1675. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2016.1260528Google Scholar
Motamedi, Y., Murgiano, M., Perniss, P., Wonnacott, E., Marshall, C., Goldin-Meadow, S., & Vigliocco, G. (2021). Linking language to sensory experience: Onomatopoeia in early language development. Developmental Science, 24(3), e13066.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Motamedi, Y., Schouwstra, M., Smith, K., Culbertson, J., & Kirby, S. (2019). Evolving artificial sign languages in the lab: From improvised gesture to systematic sign. Cognition, 192, 103964.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mukherjee, A., Loreto, V., & Tria, F. (2012). Why are basic color names” basic”? Advances in Complex Systems, 15(03n04), 1150016.Google Scholar
Murgiano, M., Motamedi, Y., & Vigliocco, G. (2021). Situating language in the real-world: The role of multimodal iconicity and indexicality. Journal of Cognition, 4(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
Nolfi, S., & Mirolli, M. (2009). Evolution of communication and language in embodied agents. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
Nölle, J., & Galantucci, B. (2021). Experimental Semiotics: past, present, and future. In The Routledge Handbook of Semiosis and the Brain (pp. 66–81). Routledge.Google Scholar
Nölle, J., Hartmann, S., & Tinits, P. (2020). Language evolution research in the year 2020: A survey of new directions. Language Dynamics and Change, 10(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1163/22105832-bja10005Google Scholar
Nölle, J., Staib, M., Fusaroli, R., & Tylén, K. (2018). The emergence of systematicity: How environmental and communicative factors shape a novel communication system. Cognition, 181, 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.08.014Google Scholar
Noveck, I. A., & Sperber, D. (2004). Experimental pragmatics. Springer.Google Scholar
Paivio, A., Rogers, T. B., & Smythe, P. C. (1968). Why are pictures easier to recall than words? Psychonomic Science, 11(4), 137–138.Google Scholar
Parisi, D., & Mirolli, M. (2007). The emergence of language: How to simulate it. In Emergence of communication and language. Lyon, C., Nehaniv, C. L., & Cangelosi, A., eds., Springer, pp. 269–285.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1894). What is a sign?Google Scholar
Perlman, M., & Lupyan, G. (2018). People can create iconic vocalizations to communicate various meanings to naïve listeners. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 2634. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598–018-20961-6Google Scholar
Perniss, P., & Vigliocco, G. (2014). The bridge of iconicity: From a world of experience to the experience of language. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 369(1651), 20130300. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0300Google Scholar
Perry, L. K., Perlman, M., Winter, B., Massaro, D. W., & Lupyan, G. (2018). Iconicity in the speech of children and adults. Developmental Science, 21(3), e12572.Google Scholar
Piantadosi, S. T., Tily, H., & Gibson, E. (2011). Word lengths are optimized for efficient communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(9), 3526–3529.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2021). Understanding dialogue: Language use and social interaction. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Poggi, I. (2008). Iconicity in different types of gestures. Gesture, 8(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.8.1.05pogGoogle Scholar
Rizzolatti, G., & Arbib, M. A. (1998). Language within our grasp. Trends in Neurosciences, 21(5), 188–194.Google Scholar
Sandler, W. (2012). Dedicated gestures and the emergence of sign language. Gesture, 12(3), 265–307. https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.12.3.01sanGoogle Scholar
Scheffer, M., van de Leemput, I., Weinans, E., & Bollen, J. (2021). The rise and fall of rationality in language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(51), 1–8.Google Scholar
Sera, M. D., Elieff, C., Forbes, J., Burch, M. C., Rodríguez, W., & Dubois, D. P. (2002). When language affects cognition and when it does not: An analysis of grammatical gender and classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131(3), 377.Google Scholar
Slonimska, A., Özyürek, A., & Capirci, O. (2020). The role of iconicity and simultaneity for efficient communication: The case of Italian Sign Language (LIS). Cognition, 200, 104246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104246Google Scholar
Snefjella, B., Généreux, M., & Kuperman, V. (2019). Historical evolution of concrete and abstract language revisited. Behavior research methods, 51(4), 1693–1705.Google Scholar
Steels, L. (2006). Experiments on the emergence of human communication. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(8), 347–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.06.002Google Scholar
Steels, L. (2011). Modeling the cultural evolution of language. Physics of Life Reviews, 8(4), 339–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2011.10.014Google Scholar
Steels, L., & Loetzsch, M. (2012). The grounded naming game. Experiments in cultural language evolution, 3, 41–59.Google Scholar
Thibault, S., Py, R., Gervasi, A. M., Salemme, R., Koun, E., Lövden, M., … Brozzoli, C. (2021). Tool use and language share syntactic processes and neural patterns in the basal ganglia. Science, 374(6569), eabe0874.Google Scholar
Torreira, F. J., Bögels, S. & Levinson, S. C. (2016). Breathing for answering. The time course of response planning in conversation. In Holler, J., Kendrick, K. H., Casillas, M., & Levinson, S. C.. Turn-taking in human communicative interaction. Frontiers, 135–144.Google Scholar
Tylén, K., Fusaroli, R., Rojo, S., Heimann, K., Fay, N., Johannsen, N. N., … Lombard, M. (2020). The evolution of early symbolic behavior in homo sapiens. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(9), 4578–4584.Google Scholar
Vainio, L. (2019). Connection between movements of mouth and hand: Perspectives on development and evolution of speech. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 100, 211–223.Google Scholar
Winter, B., Perlman, M., & Majid, A. (2018). Vision dominates in perceptual language: English sensory vocabulary is optimized for usage. Cognition, 179, 213–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.05.008Google Scholar
Winter, B., Perlman, M., Perry, L. K., & Lupyan, G. (2017). Which words are most iconic?: Iconicity in English sensory words. Interaction Studies, 18(3), 443–464.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×