Cargando…

Why Are No Animal Communication Systems Simple Languages?

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Beecher, Michael D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8018278/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33815200
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.602635
_version_ 1783674184323301376
author Beecher, Michael D.
author_facet Beecher, Michael D.
author_sort Beecher, Michael D.
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8018278
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80182782021-04-03 Why Are No Animal Communication Systems Simple Languages? Beecher, Michael D. Front Psychol Psychology 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. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-03-19 /pmc/articles/PMC8018278/ /pubmed/33815200 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.602635 Text en Copyright © 2021 Beecher. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Psychology
Beecher, Michael D.
Why Are No Animal Communication Systems Simple Languages?
title Why Are No Animal Communication Systems Simple Languages?
title_full Why Are No Animal Communication Systems Simple Languages?
title_fullStr Why Are No Animal Communication Systems Simple Languages?
title_full_unstemmed Why Are No Animal Communication Systems Simple Languages?
title_short Why Are No Animal Communication Systems Simple Languages?
title_sort why are no animal communication systems simple languages?
topic Psychology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8018278/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33815200
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.602635
work_keys_str_mv AT beechermichaeld whyarenoanimalcommunicationsystemssimplelanguages