Abstract

Language is the result of two concurrent evolutionary processes: biological and cultural inheritance. An influential evolutionary hypothesis known as the moving target problem implies inherent limitations on the interactions between our two inheritance streams that result from a difference in pace: the speed of cultural evolution is thought to rule out cognitive adaptation to culturally evolving aspects of language. We examine this hypothesis formally by casting it as as a problem of adaptation in time-varying environments. We present a mathematical model of biology-culture co-evolution in finite populations: a generalisation of the Moran process, treating co-evolution as coupled non-independent Markov processes, providing a general formulation of the moving target hypothesis in precise probabilistic terms. Rapidly varying culture decreases the probability of biological adaptation. However, we show that this effect declines with population size and with stronger links between biology and culture: in realistically sized finite populations, stochastic effects can carry cognitive specialisations to fixation in the face of variable culture, especially if the effects of those specialisations are amplified through cultural evolution. These results support the view that language arises from interactions between our two major inheritance streams, rather than from one primary evolutionary process that dominates another.

Highlights

  • The human proclivity to learn, process, and deploy natural language is unique among the animal kingdom, yet universal in our species and central to human life and survival, pointing to a unique biological endowment for these skills

  • In its most extreme form, a focus on the primacy of cultural evolution has led some to question whether biological evolution of a specialised language faculty is the better explanation of human language, and whether a biological account is even coherent: “... a biological endowment could not coevolve with properties of language that began as learned cultural conventions, because cultural conventions change much more rapidly than genes... this rules out the possibility that arbitrary properties of language, including abstract syntactic principles governing phrase structure, case marking, and agreement, have been built into a “language module” by natural selection

  • These two explanations for language, and the evolutionary processes they respectively imply, are intrinsically linked at a mechanistic level: cultural evolution is powered by repeated learning, transmission, and use, which are all underpinned by biologically evolved cognitive mechanisms; biological evolution is shaped by inclusive fitness, which – in a radically social species like ours – is a function of culturally transmitted traits and their distribution among populations[9]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The human proclivity to learn, process, and deploy natural language is unique among the animal kingdom, yet universal in our species and central to human life and survival, pointing to a unique biological endowment for these skills. The genetic basis of human language acquisition and processing did not coevolve with language...”[8] These two explanations for language, and the evolutionary processes they respectively imply, are intrinsically linked at a mechanistic level: cultural evolution is powered by repeated learning, transmission, and use, which are all underpinned by biologically evolved cognitive mechanisms; biological evolution is shaped by inclusive fitness, which – in a radically social species like ours – is a function of culturally transmitted traits and their distribution among populations[9]. Other models have led to similar conclusions: for instance, Briscoe[26] reasons that, in finite populations, only a subset of possible languages can ever be employed – as such, any cognitive specialization toward acquiring that subset faster or more reliably is beneficial to the learner and will be selected for, suggesting that the finite nature of real populations may inherently influence the evolution of cognition

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.