The Emergent Constructive Approach to Evolinguistics: Considering Hierarchy and Intention Sharing in Linguistic Communication

Abstract

Evolinguistics is an attempt to clarify the origins and evolution of language and communication, thereby deepening our understanding of humans from an evolutionary perspective. The origins of language is characterized by the biological evolution of abilities related to language and communication, and the evolution of language by the structuralization and complexification of language knowledge as well as communication systems through cultural evolution. In Evolinguistics, two idiosyncrasies of human linguistic communication are the primary focus, namely, using hierarchically organized symbol sequences in language and sharing intentions in communication. We believe that the integration of these two characteristics made humans co-creative and smart, and in particular gave us knowledge co-creation capacity. The emergent constructive approach plays an important role in this research, which is a methodology to analyze complex systems by constructing and operating the evolutionary and emergent process of complex phenomena. Two studies taking this approach are introduced in this paper. One is a language evolution experiment in a laboratory to consider the process, mechanisms, and neural basis of symbolic communication systems. The other is an evolutionary simulation of recursive combination, which is thought of as the essential ability to form hierarchical structures. A hypothesis integrating intention sharing and recursive combination is discussed as an abductive reasoning mechanism for understanding others intentions.

Keywords

Evolinguistics / origins and evolution of language / hierarchy / intention sharing / symbolic communication / recursive combination / abduction

References

[1] Anderson J R. How Can the Human Mind Occur in the Physical Universe?, 2007, New York: Oxford University Press.

[2] Arbib M. From mirror neurons to complex imitation in the evolution of language and tool use. Annual Review of Anthropology, 2011, 40(1): 257-273.

[3] Arthur B. The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves, 2009, New York: Simon & Schuster

[4] Aziz-Zadeh L, Wilson S M, Rizzolatti G, Iacoboni M. Congruent embodied representations for visually presented actions and linguistic phrases describing actions. Current Biology, 2006, 16(18): 1818-1823.

[5] Bolhuis J J, Beckers G J L, Huybregts M A C, Berwick R C, Everaert M B H. Meaningful syntactic structure in songbird vocalizations?. PLoS Biology, 2018, 16(6): e2005157. 1–11

[6] Cangelosi A, Parisi D. Simulating the Evolution of Language, 2002, London: Springer.

[7] Chomsky N. Syntactic Structures, 1957, The Hague: Mouton & Co..

[8] Chomsky N. Hale K, Keyser S. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 1993, Cambridge: MIT Press 1-52.

[9] Chomsky N. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 2005, 36(1): 1-22.

[10] Conway C M, Christiansen M H. Sequential learning in non-human primates. Trends in Cognitive Science, 2001, 5(12): 539-546.

[11] Corballis M. Mirror neurons and the evolution of language. Brain and Language, 2010, 112(1): 25-35.

[12] Damasio A R, Tranel D, Damasio H. Levin H S, Eisenberg H M, Benton A L. Somatic markers and the guidance of behavior: Theory and preliminary testing. Frontal Lobe Function and Dysfunction, 1991, New York: Oxford University Press 217-229.

[13] deMenocal P B. Climate and human evolution. Science, 2011, 331: 540-542.

[14] Everaert M B H, Huybregts M A C, Chomsky N, Berwick R C, Bolhuis J J. Structures, not strings: Linguistics as part of the cognitive sciences. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2015, 19(12): 729-743.

[15] Everett D L. Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã: Another look at the design features of human language. Current Anthropology, 2005, 46: 621-46.

[16] Frith U. Autism: Explaining the Enigma, 1989, Oxford: Basil Blackwell

[17] Fujita K. A prospect for evolutionary adequacy: Merge and the evolution and development of human language. Biolinguistics, 2009, 3(2–3): 128-153.

[18] Fujiwara M, Hashimoto T, Li G, Okuda J, Konno T, Samejima K, Morita J (in preparation). Phase synchronization on symbolic communication.

[19] Galantucci B. An experimental study of the emergence of human communication systems. Cognitive Science, 2005, 29(5): 737-767.

[20] Galantucci B. Experimental semiotics: A new approach for studying communication as a form of joint action. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2009, 1(2): 393-410.

[21] Gallese V, Goldman A. Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1998, 2(12): 493-501.

[22] Greenfield P M. Language, tools and brain: The ontogeny and phylogeny of hierarchically organized sequential behavior. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1991, 14(4): 531-551.

[23] Greenfield P M, Nelson K, Saltzman E. The development of rule bound strategies for manipulating seriated cups: A parallel between action and grammar. Cognitive Psychology, 1972, 3: 291-310.

[24] Grice H P. Cole P, Morgan J L. Logic and conversation. Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, Speech Acts, 1975, Cambridge: Academic Press 41-58.

[25] Hashimoto T. Cangelosi A, Parisi D. The constructive approach to the dynamic view of language. Simulating the Evolution of Language, 2002, London: Springer 307-324.

[26] Hashimoto T (2019). Diversified hypotheses generation by recursive combination + hypotheses selection by embodied simulation → basis of intention sharing by abduction (in Japanese). In: Takeuchi Y (ed.), Annual Meeting of Japanese Cognitive Science Society vol. 36, pp. 974–977, Hamamatsu, Japan, September 05–07, 2019.

[27] Hashimoto T, Sato T, Nakatsuka M, Fujimoto M. Petrone G, Cammarata G. Evolutionary constructive approach for studying dynamic complex systems. Recent Advances in Modelling and Simulation, 2008, Aarhus: I-Tech Books 111-136.

[28] Hashimoto T, Konno T, Morita J. Liljenstrom H. Dividing roles and ordering information flow in the formation of communication systems: The influence of role reversal imitation. Advances in Cognitive Neurodynamics (IV), 2015, Dordrecht: Springer 447-450.

[29] Hauser M D, Chomsky N, Fitch W T. The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?. Science, 2002, 298: 1568-1579.

[30] Hauser M D, Watumull J. The universal generative faculty: The source of our expressive power in language, mathematics, morality, and music. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 2017, 43: 78-94. Part B

[31] Jackendoff R. What is the human language faculty? Two views. Language, 2011, 87(3): 586-624.

[32] Kaneko K, Tsuda I. Constructive complexity and artificial reality: An introduction. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 1994, 75(1–3): 1-10.

[33] Kataoka H, Fujiwara M, Hashimoto T, Okuda J (2020). Connotation embedded in hierarchical structures of symbol strings — Extension of experimental semiotics approach. In: Tanaka H (ed.), International Symposium on Artificial Life and Robotics. vol.25, pp. 964–969, Beppu, Japan, January 22–24, 2020.

[34] Klein R G, Edgar B. The Dawn of Human Culture, 2002, New York: John Wiley & Sons

[35] Konno T, Morita J, Hashimoto T. Experimental study on formation of symbolic communication systems in coordination task. IEICE Technical Report. Natural language Understanding and Models of Communication, 2011, 110(400): 49-54 (in Japanese)

[36] Konno T, Morita J, Hashimoto T. Yamaguchi Y. Symbol communication systems integrate implicit information in coordination tasks. Advances in Cognitive Neurodynamics (III), 2012, Dordrecht: Springer 453-459.

[37] Konno T, Morita J, Hashimoto T (2012b). How is pragmatic grounding formed in the symbolic communication systems? In: Scott-Phillips T C, Tamariz M, Cartmill E A, Hurford J R (eds.), International Conference of Evolution of Language (EVOLANG9). vol. 9, pp. 482–483, Kyoto, Japan, March 13–16, 2012.

[38] Konno T, Morita J, Kishino A, Hashimoto T, Okuda J, Suzuki M (2012c). Three co-creation stages in formation of symbol communication systems. In: Miyake N, Peebles D, Cooper R P (eds.), Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci2012). vol. 34, pp.2735, Sapporo, Japan, August 1–4, 2012.

[39] Li G, Konno T, Okuda J, Hashimoto T. Wang R, Pan X. An EEG study of human mirror neuron system activities during abstract symbolic communication. Advances in Cognitive Neurodynamics (V), 2016, Dordrecht: Springer 565-571.

[40] Li G, Hashimoto T, Konno T, Okuda J, Samejima K, Morita J, Fujiwara M. The mirroring of symbols: An EEG study on the role of mirroring in the formation of symbolic communication systems. Letters on Evolutionary Behavioral Science, 2019, 10(2): 7-10.

[41] Lombard M, Haidle M. Thinking a bow-and-arrow set: Cognitive implications of Middle Stone Age bow and stone-tipped arrow technology. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 2012, 22(2): 237-264.

[42] Mithen S J. The Prehistory of the Mind: A Search for the Origins of Art, Religion, and Science, 1996, London: Thames and Hudson

[43] Moore W. Nowell A, Davidson I. Grammars of action and stone flaking design space. Stone Tools and the Evolution of Human Cognition, 2010, Boulder: University Press of Colorado 13-43.

[44] Morita J, Konno T, Hashimoto T (2012). The role of imitation in generating a shared communication system. In: Miyake N, Peebles D, Cooper R P (eds.), Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci2012) vol. 34, pp. 779–784, Sapporo, Japan, August 1–4, 2012.

[45] Morita J, Konno T, Okuda J, Samejima K, Li G, Fujiwara M, Hashimoto T. Cognitive factors influencing formation of collaborative communication — Simulation studies based on a cognitive architecture (in Japanese). The Transactions of Human Interface Society, 2018, 20(4): 435-446.

[46] Nakamori Y. Knowledge Science — Modeling the Knowledge Creation Process, 2011, London: CRC Press.

[47] Nevins A, Pesetsky D, Rodrigues C. Pirahã exceptionality: A reassessment. Language, 2009, 85(2): 355-404.

[48] Nóbrega V A, Miyagawa S. The precedence of syntax in the rapid emergence of human language in evolution as defined by the integration hypothesis. Frontiers in Psychology, 2015, 6(271): 1-8.

[49] Nonaka I, Takeuchi H. The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, 1995, New York: Oxford University Press

[50] Peirce C S (1940). Philosophical Writings of Peirce. Buchler J (ed.), Harcourt, Brace and Company, New Yoak.

[51] Pineda J A. The functional significance of mu rhythms: Translating “seeing” and “hearing” into “doing”. Brain Research Reviews, 2005, 50(1): 57-68.

[52] Pulvermüller F, Fadiga L. Active perception: Sensorimotor circuits as a cortical basis for language. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2010, 11(5): 351-360.

[53] Rizzolatti G, Arbib M A. Language within our grasp. Trends in Neurosciences, 1998, 21(5): 188-194.

[54] Rizzolatti G, Craighero L. The mirror-neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 2004, 27: 169-192.

[55] Saito Y, Konno T (2019). Designing game task for observing developmental process of structure-dependent symbolic expressions (in Japanese), In: Takeuchi Y (ed.), Annual Meeting of Japanese Cognitive Science Society vol. 36, pp. 981–985, Hamamatsu, Japan, September 05–07, 2019.

[56] Sano K, Arrighi S, Stani C, Aureli D, Boschin F, Fiore I, Spagnolo V, Ricci S, Crezzini J, Boscato P, Gala M, Tagliacozzo A, Birarda G, Vaccari L, Ronchitelli A, Moroni A, Benazzi S. The earliest evidence for mechanically delivered projectile weapons in Europe. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2019, 3(10): 1409-1414.

[57] Sano K, Fujita K, Toya G, Hashimoto T, Ikeuchi M, Ihara Y, Hayashi M (in preparation). Development of hierarchical structure in human tools and language.

[58] Scott-Phillips T C. Speaking Our Minds, 2015, London: Palgrave Macmillan.

[59] Scott-Phillips T C, Kirby S, Ritchie G R S. Signalling signalhood and the emergence of communication. Cognition, 2009, 113: 226-233.

[60] Scott-Phillips T C, Kirby S. Language evolution in the laboratory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2010, 14(9): 411417.

[61] Selten R, Warglien M. The emergence of simple languages in an experimental coordination game. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2007, 104(18): 7361-7366.

[62] Sperber D, Wilson D. Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 1986, Oxford: Blackwell

[63] Steels L. Evolving grounded communication for robots. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2003, 7(7): 308-312.

[64] Stolk A, Noordzij M L, Verhagen L, Volman I, Schoffelen J-M, Oostenveld R, Hagoort P, Toni I. Cerebral coherence between communicators marks the emergence of meaning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 2014, 111(51): 18183-18188.

[65] Stout D, Toth N, Schick K, Chaminade T. Neural correlates of early stone age toolmaking: Technology, language and cognition in human evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 2008, 363(1499): 1939-1949.

[66] Stout D. Stone toolmaking and the evolution of human culture and cognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 2011, 366(1567): 1050-1059.

[67] Tomasello M. The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition, 1999, Cambridge: Harvard University Press

[68] Tomasello M. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition, 2003, Cambridge: Harvard University Press

[69] Tomasello M. Origins of Human Communication, 2008, Cambridge: MIT Press.

[70] Toya G, Hashimoto T (2017). Evolution of recursive combination operation. In: Knibbe C, Beslon G, Parsons D, Misevic D, Rouzaud-Cornabas J, Bredéche N, Hassas S, Simonin O, Soula H (eds.), Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Life, vol. 14, pp. 396–403, Lyon, France, September 04–08, 2017.

[71] Toya G, Hashimoto T. Recursive combination has adaptability in diversifiability of production and material culture. Frontiers in Psychology, 2018, 9: 1-17. Article 1512

[72] Toya G, Hashimoto T, Asano R (2020). Evolutionary scenario of recursive combination from object manipulation to language. In: Tanaka H (ed.), International Symposium on Artificial Life and Robotics vol. 25, 992–997, Beppu, Japan January 22–24, 2020.

[73] Yonemori Y. Abduction-Logic of Hypothesis and Discovery, 2007, Tokyo: Keiso Shobo (in Japanese)

[74] Yoshida W, Seymour B, Friston K J, Dolan R J. Neural mechanisms of belief inference during cooperative games. Journal of Neuroscience, 2010, 30(32): 10744-10751.