Abstract
Abstract Symbolic artefacts have long been archaeology’s primary contribution to tracing the origin and subsequent development of human language. But the identification and interpretation of symbolic behaviour poses numerous interpretive problems, particularly before the Upper Palaeolithic where clearly referential forms of symbolic material are rare. As an alternative, theory of mind is presented here, detailing its intimate relationship with language and likely coevolution, alongside the factors which make it a more effective proxy. As a cognitive ability that grades in complexity and predicts linguistic skill in modern cognition, theory of mind also has the potential to denote specific syntactic and semantic features of language such as word reference, mental state verbs and complementation. The potential to detect theory of mind in the archaeological record is considered here, such as within the cultural transmission of stone tool technology and forms of complex social learning like imitation and teaching in early hominin technologies.
Highlights
The challenge of defining language is in incorporating everything it is, while excluding everything it is not (Aitchison, 2008)
From the contribution of archaeology, which represents the domain of hominin material culture, the most commonly used and best held indicator of language ability has far been the identification of symbolic behaviour from the presence of symbolic artefacts (d’Errico et al, 2003; Tattersall, 2017), of which the earliest examples date from the end of the Middle Palaeolithic/Middle Stone Age, and the Upper Palaeolithic/ Late Stone Age
A number of studies, most of them conducted relatively recently, have investigated social learning in the context of stone knapping experiments (Ohnuma et al, 1997; Putt et al, 2014; Morgan et al, 2015, Schillinger et al, 2015; Lombao et al, 2017; Stade, 2017). Experimental studies like these can provide vital empirical data to make these important connections between materials and minds, and the stone tool record offers the highest potential for analysing artefacts for behaviours that require theory of mind, in this case complex social learning
Summary
The challenge of defining language is in incorporating everything it is, while excluding everything it is not (Aitchison, 2008). While the battery of tests did not include non-verbal theory of mind tasks, it did suggest that the environment during development had a significant impact on their communicative and socio-cognitive abilities, and it was the enculturated apes, who were often language trained, who performed the best in tasks which utilized skills key to developing a theory of mind Another area that requires further research lies in the correlation in modern humans between more complex levels of theory of mind and language, as virtually all experiments focus on language according to the acquisition of secondlevel intentionality. Few studies like this exist, though those that do support that this correlation scales up beyond second-level intentionality (Lockl and Schneider, 2007; Miller, 2009), and lasts into adulthood (O’Reilly et al, 2014)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: 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.
