Cover not available
Article published In:
Interaction and Iconicity in the Evolution of Language
Edited by Stefan Hartmann, Michael Pleyer, James Winters and Jordan Zlatev
[Interaction Studies 18:3] 2017
► pp. 352–375

Conventionalisation and discrimination as competing pressures on continuous speech-like signals

| Max Plank Institute for Psycholinguistics | Vrije Universiteit Brussel | Vrije Universiteit Brussel |
| Vrije Universiteit Brussel | Vrije Universiteit Brussel |
| Vrije Universiteit Brussel | Vrije Universiteit Brussel |

Arbitrary communication systems can emerge from iconic beginnings through processes of conventionalisation via interaction. Here, we explore whether this process of conventionalisation occurs with continuous, auditory signals. We conducted an artificial signalling experiment. Participants either created signals for themselves, or for a partner in a communication game. We found no evidence that the speech-like signals in our experiment became less iconic or simpler through interaction. We hypothesise that the reason for our results is that when it is difficult to be iconic initially because of the constraints of the modality, then iconicity needs to emerge to enable grounding before conventionalisation can occur. Further, pressures for discrimination, caused by the expanding meaning space in our study, may cause more complexity to emerge, again as a result of the restrictive signalling modality. Our findings have possible implications for the processes of conventionalisation possible in signed and spoken languages, as the spoken modality is more restrictive than the manual modality.

Keywords: Speech, Conventionalisation, Iconicity, Language Evolution, Experimental semiotics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Our study
    • 2.1Hypotheses
  • 3.Experiment
    • 3.1Signals
    • 3.2Meanings
    • 3.3Conditions
    • 3.4Individual condition
    • 3.5Communication condition
    • 3.6Procedure
    • 3.7Analysis of signals
    • 3.8Results
    • 3.9Signals
  • 4.Signal recognition
    • 4.1Recognition of signals within the experiment
    • 4.2Recognition of signals by naïve listeners
  • 5.Discussion and further work
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 8 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.18.3.04lit
References
Brennan, S. E., & Clark, H. H.
(1996) Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(6), 1482–1493. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caldwell, C. A., & Smith, K.
(2012) Cultural evolution and perpetuation of arbitrary communicative conventions in experimental microsocieties. PloS One, 7(8), e43807. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carr, J. W., Smith, K., Cornish, H., & Kirby, S.
(2016) The cultural evolution of structured languages in an open-ended, continuous world. Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
Ehret, K., & Szmrecsanyi, B.
(2011) An information-theoretic approach to assess linguistic complexity. Complexity and isolation. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Eryilmaz, K., & Little, H.
(2016) Using leap motion to investigate the emergence of structure in speech and language. Behavioral Research Methods. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galantucci, B., & Garrod, S.
(2011) Experimental semiotics: A review. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5(11), 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garrod, S., Fay, N., Lee, J., Oberlander, J., & MacLeod, T.
(2007) Foundations of representation: where might graphical symbol systems come from? Cognitive Science, 31(6), 961–987. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S., & McNeill, D.
(1999) The role of gesture and mimetic representation in making language the province of speech. In M. C. Corballis & S. E. G. Lea (Eds.), The descent ofmind: Psychological perspectives on hominid evolution (pp. xii, 361). New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Healey, P. G., Swoboda, N., Umata, I., & King, J.
(2007) Graphical language games: Interactional constraints on representational form. Cognitive Science, 31(2), 285–309.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F.
(1960) The origin of speech. Scientific American, 2031, 88–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Imai, M., & Kita, S.
(2014) The sound symbolism bootstrapping hypothesis for language acquisition and language evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 369(1651), 20130298. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kirby, S., Cornish, H., & Smith, K.
(2008) Cumulative cultural evolution in the laboratory: An experimental approach to the origins of structure in human language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(31), 10681–10686. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kirby, S., Tamariz, M., Cornish, H., & Smith, K.
(2015) Compression and communication in the cultural evolution of linguistic structure. Cognition, 1411, 87–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Motamedi, Y., Schouwstra, M., Smith, K., & Kirby, S.
(2016) Linguistic structure emerges in the cultural evolution of artificial sign languages. In S. G. Roberts, C. Cuskley, L. McCrohon, L. Barcelo-Coblijn, O. Feher, & T. Verhoef (Eds.), The evolution of language: Proceedings of the 11th international conference (evolang 11) (pp. 493–495).
Namboodiripad, S., Lenzen, D., Lepic, R., & Verhoef, T.
(2016) Measuring conventionalization in the manual modality. Journal ofLanguage Evolution, lzw005. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perlman, M., Dale, R., & Lupyan, G.
(2015) Iconcity can ground the creation of vocal symbols. Royal Society Open Science, 2(8), 150152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, G., & Galantucci, B.
(2012) The emergence of duality of patterning: Insights from the laboratory. Language and Cognition, 4(4), 297–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, G., Lewandowski, J., & Galantucci, B.
(2015) How communication changes when we cannot mime the world: Experimental evidence for the effect of iconicity on combinatoriality. Cognition, 1411, 52–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandler, W., Aronoff, M., Meir, I., & Padden, C.
(2011) The gradual emergence of phonological form in a new language. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 29(2), 503–543. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schlehofer, D.
(2016) Sign language archaeology: Understanding the historical roots of american sign language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Theisen, C. A., Oberlander, J., & Kirby, S.
(2010) Systematicity and arbitrariness in novel communication systems. Interaction Studies, 11(1), 14–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhoef, T., Kirby, S., & Boer, B.
(2015) Iconicity and the emergence of combinatorial structure in language. Cognitive Science, 40(8), 1969–1994. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winters, J., Kirby, S., & Smith, K.
(2015) Languages adapt to their contextual niche. Language and Cognition, 7(3), 415–449. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Cuskley, Christine
2019. Alien forms for alien language: investigating novel form spaces in cultural evolution. Palgrave Communications 5:1 DOI logo
Kempe, Vera, Nicolas Gauvrit, Nikolay Panayotov, Sheila Cunningham & Monica Tamariz
2021. Amount of Learning and Signal Stability Modulate Emergence of Structure and Iconicity in Novel Signaling Systems. Cognitive Science 45:11 DOI logo
THOMPSON, BILL, MARCUS PERLMAN, GARY LUPYAN, ZED SEVCIKOVA SEHYR & KAREN EMMOREY
2020. A data-driven approach to the semantics of iconicity in American Sign Language and English. Language and Cognition 12:1 ► pp. 182 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.