The Structural Effects of Modality on the Rise of Symbolic Language: A Rebuttal of Evolutionary Accounts and a Laboratory Demonstration.

Victor J Boucher,Antonin Rossier-Bisaillon,Annie C Gilbert

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02300

Abstract

Why does symbolic communication in humans develop primarily in an oral medium, and how do theories of language origin explain this? Non-human primates, despite their ability to learn and use symbolic signs, do not develop symbols as in oral language. This partly owes to the lack of a direct cortico-motoneuron control of vocalizations in these species compared to humans. Yet such modality-related factors that can impinge on the rise of symbolic language are interpreted differently in two types of evolutionary storylines. (1) Some theories posit that symbolic language originated in a gestural modality, as in “sign languages.” However, this overlooks work on emerging sign and spoken languages showing that gestures and speech shape signs differently. (2) In modality-dependent theories, some emphasize the role of iconic sounds, though these lack the efficiency of arbitrary symbols. Other theorists suggest that ontogenesis serves to identify human-specific mechanisms underlying an evolutionary shift from pitch varying to orally modulated vocalizations (babble). This shift creates numerous oral features that can support efficient symbolic associations. We illustrate this principle using a sound-picture association task with 40 learners who hear words in an unfamiliar language (Mandarin) with and without a filtering of oral features. Symbolic associations arise more rapidly and accurately for sounds containing oral features compared to sounds bearing only pitch features, an effect also reported in experiments with infants. The results imply that, beyond a competence to learn and use symbols, the rise of symbolic language rests on the types of signs that a modality of expression affords.

Highlights

There is a vast literature on the origin of spoken language, much of which offers diverging viewpoints with few areas of consensus
When shifting from items with tonal features to items that include features of articulation, symbolic associations were formed more rapidly and accurately. These observations and the above test are not meant to reflect evolution. Their purpose is to demonstrate the basic point that one may not account for the rise of symbolic signs in language without some reference to the types of signals that a modality of expression affords
One should remark that the definitions of symbols that guide much of the work on language evolution refer to 19th century writers like Peirce and Saussure who did not consider how processes of modality can shape signals and signs

Summary

Introduction

There is a vast literature on the origin of spoken language, much of which offers diverging viewpoints with few areas of consensus. It is widely accepted that a fundamental feature of language is its symbolic function and that, aside from humans, no other species have developed systems of signs such as those that appear in spoken language. The Rise of Symbolic Language some, humans are the symbolic species (Deacon, 1997). Claiming the human specificity of symbolic communication rests on how one defines symbols, and the processes by which they evolved. The present paper aims at clarifying these processes within evolutionary theories while offering a demonstration of how the ability to articulate sounds presents an essential factor in the rise of symbolic language

Methods

Results

Conclusion