Cover not available
Part of
How the Brain Got Language – Towards a New Road Map
Edited by Michael A. Arbib
[Benjamins Current Topics 112] 2020
► pp. 167–182

Language origins

Fitness consequences, platform of trust, cooperation, and turn-taking

| Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń, Poland
| Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń, Poland
In this paper, we complement proximate or ‘how’ explanations for the origins of language, broadening our perspective to include fitness-consequences explanations, i.e. ultimate, or ‘why’ explanations. We identify the platform of trust as a fundamental prerequisite for the development of a language-like system of symbolic communication. The platform of trust is a social niche in which cheap but honest communication with non-kin is possible, because messages tend to be trusted as a default. We briefly consider the place of the platform of trust on the road map as laid out in the Mirror System Hypothesis. We then turn to recent research on turn-taking in primates, which has been proposed as a precursor of the cooperative structuring of conversation in humans. We suggest, instead, that human turn-taking, in its full richness that makes it an interesting explanatory target, may only appear in a communicative system that is already founded on a community-wide, cooperative platform of trust.
Keywords: Mirror System Hypothesis, language evolution, language origins, cooperation, turn-taking, conversation, trust, proximate explanations, ultimate explanations
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Communication: A fitness-consequences perspective
  • 3.The platform of trust
  • 4.Cooperation
    • 4.1The evolutionary origins of human cooperation
  • 5.The platform of trust and the Mirror System Hypothesis
  • 6.Turn-taking
    • 6.1Alternation
    • 6.2Synchrony (fast-paced temporal coordination)
    • 6.3Conditional relevance
    • 6.4(Egalitarian) role reversibility
  • 7.Towards a new road map
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 11 August 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.112.12wac
References (71)
References
Arbib, M. (2012). How the brain got language. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arbib, M., Ganesh, V., & Gasser, B. (2014). Dyadic brain modelling, mirror systems and the ontogenetic ritualization of ape gesture. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, 369(1644), 20130414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arbib, M. A. (2016). Towards a computational comparative neuroprimatology: framing the language-ready brain. Physics of life reviews, 16, 1–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Axelrod, R. (1984). The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Burkart, J. M., Hrdy, S. B., and Van Schaik, C. P. (2009). Cooperative breeding and human cognitive evolution. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 18(5), 175–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burkart, J. M., Allon, O., Amici, F., Fichtel, C., Finkenwirth, C., Heschl, A., … and Meulman, E. J. (2014). The evolutionary origin of human hyper-cooperation. Nature communications 5, 4747.Google Scholar
Burkart, J. M., Guerreiro Martins, E. M., Miss, F., & Zürcher, Y. (2018). From sharing food to sharing information. Cooperative breeding and language evolution. Interaction Studies, 19(1–2), 136–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chow, C. P., Mitchell, J. F., and Miller, C. T. (2015). Vocal turn-taking in a non-human primate is learned during ontogeny. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 282 (1807), 20150069.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language, Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., and Selting, M. (1996). “Towards an interactional perspective on prosody and a prosodic perspective on interaction,” in Prosody in Conversation, eds. E. Couper-Kuhlen and M. Selting (Cambridge: CUP), 11–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Boer, M., Kokal, I., Blokpoel, M., Liu, R., Stolk, A., Roelofs, K., … & Toni, I. (2017). Oxytocin modulates human communication by enhancing cognitive exploration. Psychoneuroendocrinology 86, 64–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fedurek, P., Slocombe, K. E., Hartel, J. A., and Zuberbühler, K. (2015). Chimpanzee lip-smacking facilitates cooperative behavior. Scientific reports, 5. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fitch, T. (2004). “Kin selection and ‘mother tongues’: a neglected component in language evolution”, in Evolution of communication systems: A comparative approach, eds. D. K. Oller and U. Griebel (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 275–296.Google Scholar
(2010). The Evolution of Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fröhlich, M., Kuchenbuch, P., Müller, G., Fruth, B., Furuichi, T., Wittig, R. M. and Pika, S. (2016). Unpeeling the layers of language: Bonobos and chimpanzees engage in cooperative turn-taking sequences. Scientific reports, 6, 25887. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fröhlich, M. (2017). Taking turns across channels: Conversation-analytic tools in animal communication. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 80, 201–209 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gärdenfors, P. (2004). Cooperation and the evolution of symbolic communication. In: Oller, K., Griebel, U. (Eds) The Evolution of Communication Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 237–256.Google Scholar
Ghazanfar, A. A. and Takahashi, D. Y. (2014). The evolution of speech: vision, rhythm, cooperation. Trends in Cognitive Science 18(10), 543–553. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). “Logic and conversation”, in Syntax and Semantics, Speech Acts (vol. 3), eds. P. Cole and J. Morgan (New York: Academic Press), 41–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Griffin, Z. M. and Bock, K. (2000). What the eyes say about speaking. Psychological Science 4, 274–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hare, B. (2017). Survival of the friendliest: Homo sapiens evolved via selection for prosociality. Annual review of psychology 68, 155–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N. A., and Fitch, T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298, 1569–1579. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hockett, C. F. (1963). “The Problem of Universals in Language” in J. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1–29.Google Scholar
Hrdy, S. (2009). Mothers and others. London: HUP.Google Scholar
Hurford, J. (2007). The origins of meaning. Language in the light of evolution. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Jaeggi, A. V., Burkart, J. M., & Van Schaik, C. P. (2010). On the psychology of cooperation in humans and other primates: combining the natural history and experimental evidence of prosociality. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 365(1553), 2723–2735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keller, P. E., Novembre, G. and Hove, M. J. (2014). Rhythm in joint action: psychological and neurophysiological mechanisms for real-time interpersonal coordination. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 369 (1658), 20130394. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture. Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knight, C. (1998). Ritual/speech coevolution: A solution to the problem of deception. In Hurford, J. et al. (Eds.), Approaches to the Evolution of Language, Cambridge: CUP, 68–91.Google Scholar
Knight, C., and Lewis, J. D. (2017). Wild Voices: Mimicry, Reversal, Metaphor, and the Emergence of Language. Current Anthropology, 58(4), 435–453. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krebs, J. R., Dawkins, R. (1984). “Animal Signals: Mind-Reading and Manipulation”, in J. R. Krebs and R. Dawkins (Eds.), Behavioral Ecology. Oxford: Blackwell, 380–402.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. M. (1999). “Producing spoken language: a blueprint of the speaker,” in The Neurocognition of Language, eds. C. Brown and P. Hagoort, Oxford: OUP, 83–122.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2006). On the human “interaction engine”. In: Enfield, N. J., Levinson, S. C. (Eds.), Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition and Interaction. Berg, Oxford, pp. 39–69.Google Scholar
(2016). Turn-taking in human communication, origins, and implications for language processing. Trends Cogn. Sci. 20 (1), 6–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S., and Torreira, F. (2015). Timing in turn-taking and its implications for processing models of language. Frontiers in Psychology 6, 731. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Masataka, N., and Biben, M. (1987). Temporal rules regulating affiliative vocal exchanges of squirrel monkeys. Behavior 101 (4), 311–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maynard Smith, J., and Harper, D. (2003). Animal Signals. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Mitani, J. C. (2009). Cooperation and competition in chimpanzees: current understanding and future challenges. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 18(5), 215–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nave, G., Camerer, C., & McCullough, M. (2015). Does oxytocin increase trust in humans? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(6), 772–789. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Okanoya, K. (2002). Sexual display as a syntactical vehicle: the evolution of syntax in birdsong and human language through sexual selection. In: Wray, A. (Ed.), The Transition to Language. Oxford: OUP, 46–63.Google Scholar
Power, C. (2014). “Female philopatry and egalitarianism and conditions for the emergence of intersubjectivity”. In Cartmill, E. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Evolang, Singapore: World Scientific, pp. 252–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, S. G., Torreira, F., and Levinson, S. C. (2015). The effects of processing and sequence organization on the timing of turn-taking: a corpus study. Frontiers in Psychology 6, 509. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rossano, F. (2013). Sequence organization and timing of bonobo mother-infant interactions. Interact. Stud. 14(2), 160–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(this volume). Social manipulation, turn-taking and cooperation in apes: Implications for the evolution of language-based interaction in humans. Interaction Studies, 19(1–2), 151–166.
Ruiter de, J. P., Mitterer, H., and Enfield, N. J. (2006). Projecting the end of a speaker’s turn: A cognitive cornerstone of conversation. Language 82, 515–535. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sachs, J. L., and Rubenstein, D. R. (2007). The evolution of cooperative breeding; is there cheating? Behavioral Processes 76(2), 131–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. and Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language 50, 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emmanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. (1978). “A Simplest Systematic for the Organization of Turn-Taking in Conversation,” in Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, ed. Jim Schenkein (New York: Academic Press), 7–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schaik van, C. P. (2016). The primate origins of human nature. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2000). Overlapping Talk and the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language and Society 29, 1–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott-Phillips, T. C., Dickins, T. E., and West, S. A. (2011). Evolutionary theory and the ultimate–proximate distinction in the human behavioral sciences. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 38–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Semendeferi, K. (this volume) Why do we want to talk? Evolution of neural substrates of emotion and social cognition. Interaction Studies, 19(1–2), 102–120.
Sperber, D., and Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance. Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., Englert, C., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T. and Levinson, S. C. (2009). Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(26), 10587–10592. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Takahashi, D. Y., Narayanan, D. Z. and Ghazanfar, A. A. (2013). Coupled oscillator dynamics of vocal turn-taking in monkeys. Curr. Biol. 23(21), 2162–2168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tan, J., Ariely, D., and Hare, B. (2017). Bonobos respond prosocially toward members of other groups. Scientific reports, 7(1), 14733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Theofanopoulou, C., Boeckx, C., Jarvis, E. D. (2017). A hypothesis on a role of oxytocin in the social mechanisms of speech and vocal learning. Proc. R. Soc. B 284, 20170988. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M., Melis, A. P., Tennie, C., Wyman, E., and Herrmann, E. (2012). Two key steps in the evolution of human cooperation. Current Anthropology 53(6), 673–692. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M., & Gonzalez-Cabrera, I. (2017). The role of ontogeny in the evolution of human cooperation. Human Nature, 1–15.Google Scholar
Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 20(4), 410–433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vega-Redondo, F., and Hasson, O. (1993). A Game-theoretic Model of Predator – Prey Signaling. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 162(3), 309–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wacewicz, S., Żywiczyński, P. (2012). Human honest signalling and nonverbal communication. Psychology of Language and Communication 16 (2), 113–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wacewicz, S. (2015). The shades of social. A discussion of” The social origins of language”, ed. Daniel Dor, Chris Knight and Jerome Lewis. Theoria et Historia Scientiarum, 11, 191–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wacewicz, S., Żywiczyński, P., and Chiera, A. (2017). An evolutionary approach to low-level conversational cooperation. Language Sciences. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wagner, W. E. (2011). Direct benefits and the evolution of female mating preferences: conceptual problems, potential solutions, and a field cricket. Advances in the Study of Behavior 43(273), e319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
West, S. A., El Mouden, C., and Gardner, A. (2011). Sixteen common misconceptions about the evolution of cooperation in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior 32(4), 231–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zahavi, A., and Zahavi, A. (1997). The Handicap Principle. New York: OUP.Google Scholar
Zlatev, J. (2014). “The co-evolution of human intersubjectivity, morality, and language”, in The Social Origins of Language, eds. D. Dor, C. Knight and J. Lewis (Oxford: OUP), 249–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zywiczynski, P., Orzechowski, S., and Wacewicz, S. (2017). Adaptors and the Turn-Taking Mechanism: The Distribution of Adaptors Relative to Turn Borders in Dyadic Conversation. Interaction Studies 18(2), is.18.2.07zyw DOI logoGoogle Scholar