26.3078, Review: Anthropological Ling; Cog Sci; Pragmatics: Dor, Lewis, Knight (2014)

[The LINGUIST List via LINGUIST]

LINGUIST List: Vol-26-3078. Mon Jun 29 2015. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 26.3078, Review: Anthropological Ling; Cog Sci; Pragmatics: Dor, Lewis, Knight (2014)

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Anthony Aristar, Helen Aristar-Dry, Sara Couture)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
              http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Sara  Couture <sara at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 14:08:01
From: Anish Koshy [anish at efluniversity.ac.in]
Subject: The Social Origins of Language

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36014877


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/25/25-2743.html

AUTHOR: Daniel  Dor
AUTHOR: Christopher  Knight
AUTHOR: Jerome  Lewis
TITLE: The Social Origins of Language
SERIES TITLE: Oxford Studies in the Evolution of Language 19
PUBLISHER: Oxford University Press
YEAR: 2014

REVIEWER: Anish Koshy, English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad

Review's Editor: Helen Aristar-Dry

INTRODUCTION
 
This volume is the nineteenth in a long series of comprehensive works brought
out by the OUP under its “Oxford Studies in the Evolution of Language” series.
Under the series, various publications have taken up engaging issues like the
origin of sound systems, morphology, grammar, meaning, etc., from multiple
theoretical perspectives. This volume is based on the premise that a theory
with co-evolutionary dynamics explains language evolution better than theories
of genetic changes alone. The volume is organized as a collection of 23 papers
along with a brief introductory note by the editors, arranged in five
sections.
 
SUMMARY
 
Introducing the two central assumptions in the volume, Daniel Dor, Chris
Knight, and Jerome Lewis in “Introduction: A social perspective on how
language began” propose that: (a) genetic changes are preceded by behavioural
changes, and (b) there were barriers to language evolution that only humans
overcame and no other species including other primates. Language evolved in a
world of conflicts and mistrustful social conditions, requiring
socio-political changes as well as trusting stable relationships.
 
Part I, “Theoretical Foundations”, with four papers, places theories of
language origin within the broader evolutionary framework. Daniel Dor and Eva
Jablonka in their chapter “Why we need to move from gene-culture co-evolution
to culturally-driven co-evolution” argue that genetic accommodation for
language was preceded by behavioural changes, triggered by cultural and
cognitive plasticity. Genetic mutations did not lead to a capacity for
language; rather ‘we evolved for language.’ Chris Sinha in “Niche construction
and semiosis: Biocultural and social dynamics” looks at language as a
biocultural niche, and language evolution as a transition from a system of
signals to a symbolic system with intersubjectivity, conventionalization and
structural elaboration playing an important role. Camilla Power in “Signal
evolution and the social brain” argues that the human signal system with its
digital components, though very efficient, is extremely unreliable and that
this paradox is resolved by the development of a socio-cognitive complex of
cooperation, egalitarianism, mind-reading and establishment of systems of
counter dominance through ritual actions. Sverker Johansson in “How can a
social theory of language evolution be grounded in evidence?” reviews four
main sources of empirical evidence: (a) the communication and sociality in
non-human animals, (b) the use of language for social purposes in social
contexts, (c) neurobiology and genetics of the human language capacity and
general social capacities, and, (d) fossil and archaeological evidence.
 
Part II, “Language as a collective object”, with four papers, tries to
understand what exactly language is in terms of its fundamental defining
aspects. Adam Kendon in “The 'poly-modalic' nature of utterances and its
relevance for inquiring into language origins” argues that human communicative
act is poly-modalic, with language evolving as a result of specialization and
differentiation of speech and gesture. In “BaYaka Pygmy multi-modal and
mimetic communication traditions”, Jerome Lewis highlights that the BaYaka
communication system consists of not only speaking but also dancing, yodeling,
drumming, gesturing, mimicking and imitating animal sounds as well as
neighbouring languages, with deeply gendered differences. Any speculation on
the origins of languages, must take such ethnographic details of communicative
traditions into account. Nick J. Enfield and Jack Sidnell in “Language
presupposes an enchronic infrastructure for social interaction” look into the
dynamics of natural conversation (based on Conversational Analysis) and
conclude that conversations are managed procedurally within an ‘enchronic
infrastructure for social interaction.’ Any inquiry into language is looked
upon as part of the ‘socio-relational concerns of research on human
sociality.’ Daniel Dor in “The instruction of imagination: Language and its
evolution as a communication technology” connects the emergence of language to
a ‘systematic instruction of imagination’ via an ‘instructive strategy’ which
encourages the listener to construct/imagine the intended meaning in the lines
intended by the communicator.
 
PART III, “Apes and People, Past and Present” with eight papers, seeks to know
why language emerged only in humans and not in apes. Simone Pika in
“Chimpanzee grooming gestures and sounds: What might they tell us about how
language evolved?” discusses the complex, intentional and flexible nature of
gestural production/comprehension in chimpanzees, accompanied by
vocalizations, and draws many parallels between chimpanzee grooming gestures
and vocalization, and pre-linguistic human children. Zanna Clay and Klaus
Zuberbühler in “Vocal communication and social awareness in chimpanzees and
bonobos” argue that primate vocalizations are not ‘involuntary expressions of
emotions’ but are flexible systems with underlying cognitive mechanisms,
providing insights into individual awareness and social dynamics.
Vocalizations as influenced by social environment and knowledge are important
precursors in the evolution of human language. Charles Whitehead in “Why
humans and not apes: The social preconditions for the emergence of language”
links the origins of human language to the origins of human rituals and
discusses different kinds of human social displays – communication, play and
performance, in their different modes – implicit, mimetic and conventional.
Emily Wyman in “Language and collective fiction: From children's pretence to
social institutions” explores the origins of human language in shared fictions
and prescribed imaginings, as in pretend plays/games and institutional
practices, with social consent and subscribed normative behaviours. Dan Dediu
and Stephen C. Levinson in “The time frame of the emergence of modern language
and its implications” argue that language and speech emerged before the
splitting of modern humans and Neanderthals, around 0.6-1.5 million years ago,
in a co-evolution of our culturally complex communication system with the
anatomical, physiological and neurological changes required to support it.
Looking at ritualized sexual selection processes as possible earliest contexts
for symbolic communication, Camilla Power in “The evolution of ritual as a
process of sexual selection” argues that language emerged in a social setting
where dominance of individuals is countered by collective domination by the
group. Ian Watts in “The red thread: Pigment use and the evolution of
collective ritual” correlates the emergence of collective ritual with the use
of red ochre as a symbol of fertility, arguing that the evolution of language
is not co-terminus with the emergence of symbolic rituals but a later
development. Arguing that the evolution of language is only one aspect of a
complex evolutionary picture of various symbolic aspects of social and
cultural evolutions, Chris Knight in “Language and symbolic culture: An
outcome of hunter-gatherer reverse dominance” reviews ideas on cooperation
between strangers, the role of symbolism, the evolution of the deep social
mind, the emergence of counter-dominance and the role of female coalitionary
strategies, among others.
 
PART IV, “The Social Origins of Language Evolution” with four papers, explores
the central theme of the volume. Jordan Zlatev in “The co-evolution of human
intersubjectivity, morality, and language” argues that since evolution is
fundamentally an individual trait, and language a socially shared symbolic
system, it must have co-evolved with two other anomalous features of human
sociality, namely, intersubjectivity and morality, involving a trade-off
between selfish and group-level traits. Ehud Lamm in “Forever united: The
co-evolution of language and normativity” analyzes the bi-directional
interaction between language and normative contexts, arguing that this is a
result of co-evolutionary dynamics. This interaction, Lamm argues, affects the
spread of innovations as well as the evolution of innate capacities, social
conventions as well as cultural knowledge. Jean-Louis Dessalles in “Why talk?”
explores the selection pressures for language, seeing it as having evolved as
a strategy for diminishing chances of being killed, as humans developed deadly
weapons. Language evolved when humans cooperated as friends against potential
dangers. Chris Knight and Jerome Lewis in “Vocal deception, laughter, and the
linguistic significance of reverse dominance” analyze the role of vocal
mimicry (by men) and choral singing (by women) in developing trust and
harmonized emotions, as well as in developing interest in listening to others
and believing in their make-believe deceptions. Reverse-dominance of the group
over individuals is seen to have established the social conditions required
for the evolution of language.
 
PART V, “The Journey Thereafter”, the last section with three papers, explores
the cultural evolution of language, its stabilization and its diversification.
Simona Ginsburg and Eva Jablonka in “Memory, imagination, and the evolution of
modern language” connect the evolution of language with the emergence of a
capacity for imagination and memory. Language becomes ‘an imagination
instructing communication technology’, allowing episodic recalls and pretend
plays. Nick J. Enfield in “Transmission biases in the cultural evolution of
language: Towards an explanatory framework” analyses ‘transmission biases’
that promote or inhibit cultural innovation. Enfield discusses a four-stage
dynamic involved in a process of ‘item-based language transmission’ –
exposure, representation, reproduction, and finally material
instantiation/grounding. Luc Steels in the last chapter of the volume
“Breaking down false barriers to understanding” discusses what he calls false
dichotomies in linguistic research, including, synchrony-diachrony,
nature-culture, competence-performance, processing-describing,
formalism-functionalism, etc, and argues that language evolution can be
understood only with a composite view which holds that cooperation and trust
are important prerequisites for language evolution.
 
EVALUATION
 
We’ve definitely come a long way in the discussion of the evolution of human
language from the 1866 banning of such discussion by the constitution of the
SLP (Société de linguistique de Paris),  to avoid unscientific speculations on
the origins of language.  This occurred 7 years after Darwin’s 1859 theory of
evolution.

The theme of the book as represented by its title ensures a very focused
discussion, unlike some earlier volumes in the series like Christiansen and
Kirby (2003) where each scholar (called ‘the big names in every discipline’)
had gone off on his/her own tangent, with the volume overall failing to
present a cohesive picture of the state of the art. The title also reminds us
of the other dominant perspective on language evolution in linguistics, that
of the generative linguists led by Chomsky. Therefore, it is important for us
to understand and evaluate, both how and if this book is different from
previous publications on this topic, and also if it addresses any of the
criticisms that the generative linguists level at enquiries on language
evolution from a sociolinguistic or a functional perspective – mainly, that it
does not explain the evolution of the hierarchical structure of language as
well as the property of recursion.
 
It should not be surprising that language evolution research is both
interdisciplinary as well as rife with disagreements. Christiansen and Kirby
(2003), Larson, Déprez and Yamakido (2010), Tallerman and Gibson (2011) are
good sources of information about some of these disagreements. These
disagreements have ranged from whether language is primarily for thought or
for communication, with Chomsky and other formalists maintaining it is for the
former; whether language evolution was gradual or sudden; whether language
evolution is a matter of adaptation and natural selection or a product of
genetic mutation; if language disorders are due to genetic factors and not
environmental, then can the capacity for language be environmental; conversely
if it is a matter of only genes and genetic changes, why only humans have
language and no other species even though human beings are genetically close
to many other species; whether the form preceded the function or vice-versa,
that is, whether language had evolved before the necessary neuro-cognitive
changes had taken place or whether such changes made the evolution of language
possible; whether language evolved out of gestures or some form of a
proto-language; whether language evolution is a matter of individual learning,
a socio-cultural transmission or biological evolution or all of these and
whether they happened gradually or all simultaneously.
 
What is the qualitative and quantitative place of linguistics in a debate on
language evolution, largely still based on speculations, ingenuous theories
and data to which we have no access? The role of linguistics may boil down to
whether the formal or the functional approach is better at speculations,
unless the focus is changed or slightly altered to present an account of
language evolution on the basis of data that is available – something that is
possible for those arguing for a social origin of language.
 
Most works on the evolution of human language suffer from what Knight had
called the “two cultures’ divide” (2004: 930) where views from humanities and
social sciences are excluded by those writing from a biological perspective
and vice-versa, with the consequence that instead of promoting synthetic
state-of-the-art understanding of the issue, they stand accepted by one group
and rejected by the other. Nowhere is this divide more pronounced
unfortunately, than the generative linguists’ refusal to accept or even
accommodate a functional perspective on the question of language evolution.
That evolutionary biologists like Fitch and Hauser (see: Fitch (2010); Hauser
and Fitch (2003)) have conceded that there may not be any real ‘language
organ’ (what was referred to as ‘the narrow language faculty’ in the joint
paper that they had with Chomsky), has not had much of an impact on the
generative linguists’ continued search for an answer for language evolution in
this hypothetical language organ, ignoring insights from psychology,
anthropology, ethno-linguistics and other behavioural sciences.
 
This volume must be commended for taking on board positions on language from
the fields of psychology, anthropology, evolutionary biology, artificial
intelligence and linguistics, for a comprehensive view of language and in
using that integrated view of language in addressing the question of language
evolution in order to come out with a more credible narrative. With fossil
records remaining inconclusive, and with evolutionary biologists like Fitch
(2010) ruling out any language specific biological evolutions in human beings
(like lowering of larynx, categorical perception, etc.), the question of
language evolution from a biological point of view has also been reduced to
one of conjectures and hypotheses. If the solution is to be found in
conjectures, it is more useful to approach the question of language evolution
not in terms of abstract unprovable hypotheses, but through methods and
positions with direct access to language in its dynamic context. This is in
consonance with the Darwinian caveat that unless compelled by evidence, it is
to be assumed that processes observed in the present must have existed
historically as well. It is exactly this that gives strength and credence to
the approach that the authors in this volume adopt, in trying to understand
the purpose of language evolution in terms of the purpose for which language
would have been used. This is done by looking at language use in the present
and the purposes it is called to fulfill - symbolic communication, maintaining
group cohesion and group identity formations.
 
If language is a product of evolution, and not mere sudden genetic mutations,
then it has to be through a slow process of natural selection for which
sufficient and necessary conditions must exist. In addressing the
circumstances, the volume scores over most formal linguistic proposals on
language evolution. The dependence on actual data on the communicative
abilities of both humans and apes, presents a more useful perspective in
understanding why it developed in humans and not in our pre-linguistic
ancestors. The data-driven approach makes the work as empirical as possible
while addressing the question of a historical evolution. Considering the
speculative nature of the enquiry, the authors must be commended for also not
resorting to grand-standing or extreme partisan positions, and presenting a
balanced perspective, even at times acknowledging the shortcomings of their
proposals. Linguists and others who appreciate a functional perspective on
language will welcome the volume’s treatment of language not in a vacuum, but
from the perspective of evolving human behaviour, strategies, alliance
formations in an atmosphere of power, obligations and cooperation.
 
Not everything we know about language, its structure, and its neurobiological
underpinnings need have been subjected to evolution and just because the
structure of language is abstract and complex, it need not be assumed that the
factors that led to its evolution must also be equally abstract and complex!
By looking at what could have facilitated language evolution, this volume
pitches itself into the debate at a time-frame when the necessary conditions
for its evolution were being created. It may be true that social factors had
no role and only genetic mutations did, in the final shape that the structure
of language took, but then the book does not make any claims on that phase of
language evolution.
 
Notwithstanding the importance of the volume, not all ideas presented in the
chapters are new. For example, the importance of gossip, in maintaining social
cohesion and cooperation, is already discussed in detail in Dunbar (1996).
This importance of gossip, as also other cultural factors in the evolution of
language is also acknowledged by Fitch (2010). If one has already read
Tallerman and Gibson’s Handbook (2011), one will find that many of the issues
discussed in various chapters in connection with the social evolution of
language in this volume has already been discussed there. This includes: the
role of symbolic behaviour (like in the use of beadworks), cultural
transmission and conventions and perspective taking, foraging strategies,
vocal grooming through gossip; the evolution of language to enhance exchange
of social information, manage reputation and identify group members; the role
of language in sharing intentions; the role of gestures; the interaction
between cognitive-biological constraints and cultural creation and
transmission, among others. But that does not detract from the attempt the
book as a whole makes in presenting a more unified narrative.
 
It is indeed unfortunate that most of the criticisms of a functional
perspective on language evolution from generative linguists have assumed that
those trying to give a social explanation are denying the structural
complexity of language and therefore have no useful contribution to make to
this debate. Far from denying the structural complexity of language, or being
ignorant about it, most papers in this volume show an acute awareness and
appreciation of the complexity of human language. A social perspective does
not deny this recursive, hierarchical complex nature of human language, but
tries to explain what may have happened before we developed the cognitive and
neurobiological capacities that made such a complex language possible. With
fossil records remaining inconclusive on language evolution, and recursion and
hierarchical structure both biologically present in other non-human species
(though not in their communication systems), to persist in arguing for a
language organ as the only reasonable inquiry in language evolution is likely
to keep the generative linguists’ inquiry into the evolution of language in
the domain of the abstract – neither proved nor provable. A social
explanation, as in this volume, even if mostly conjectural, still relies on a
concrete empirical grounding in the practices of human societies.
 
It is clear that a fruitful understanding of the question of language
evolution would require a multi-disciplinary and cumulative approach. Our best
bet lies in understanding language evolution through observable phenomena,
taking a social/functional approach, coupled with a cognitive and biological
perspective. The authors are justified in maintaining that language is not an
individually beneficial, self-sufficient biological adaptation, and therefore
to look for its evolution only in fossils and biological changes would be
futile, and that language evolved as a result of social, political, cultural,
cognitive and emotional entanglement, developing and residing at the level of
the community with individuals acquiring it as part of their socialization
process.
 
The volume comes with a comprehensive and well-built bibliography extending
over 70 pages, which will prove a resource for both teachers and students
looking for more extended reading. The editors deserve a special mention for
ensuring that in spite of a single comprehensive bibliography at the end,
instead of one at the end of each chapter, the references are cross-listed
perfectly, even when there are authors with multiple publications in the same
year, and when only one is referenced in a particular chapter. The editors
must also be commended for summarizing the key points in individual chapters
and also for connecting the individual chapters and even their conflicting
perspectives into the grand narrative theme presented by the title of the
book. Outstanding issues and problems are adequately highlighted leaving room
for future scholars to add to and modify to our knowledge of the enigmatic
origin of language.

REFERENCES
 
Christiansen, M. H., and Kirby, S. (Eds.). 2003. Language evolution. Oxford:
OUP.
 
Dunbar, R. 1996. Gossip, grooming and the evolution of language. Cambridge:
Harvard UP.
 
Fitch, W. T. 2010. The evolution of language. Cambridge: CUP.
 
Hauser, Marc D., and Fitch, W. Tecumseh. 2003. “What are the Uniquely Human
Components of the Language Faculty?” In M. H. Christiansen and S. Kirby (eds.)
Language evolution. Oxford: OUP, 158-181.
 
Knight, Chris. 2004. Review of Language Evolution by Morten H. Christiansen
and Simon Kirby. In The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Vol.
10, No. 4 (Dec., 2004), pp. 929-930.
 
Larson, R. K., Déprez, V., and Yamakido, H. 2010. The evolution of human
language. Cambridge: CUP.
 
Tallerman, M., and Gibson, K. R. (Eds.). 2011. The Oxford handbook of language
evolution. Oxford: OUP.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Anish Koshy has worked on the Mon-Khmer languages Pnar and Khasi spoken in
Meghalaya in the Northeastern region of India and submitted a dissertation on
the pronominal clitics in these languages at the Jawaharlal Nehru University,
New Delhi. He is presently working on his Doctoral thesis on ''The typology of
clitics in the Austroasiatic languages of India'' while also teaching at the
English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad, India. His career
interests include working on the morphosyntax of lesser-studied languages of
India from a typological perspective.





----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-26-3078	
----------------------------------------------------------