Great ape communication as contextual social inference: a computational modeling perspective

The deep structural diversity of languages suggests that our language capacities are not based on any single template but rather on an underlying ability and motivation for infants to acquire a culturally transmitted system. The hypothesis is that this ability has an interactional base that has discernable precursors in other primates. In this paper, I explore a specific evolutionary route for the most puzzling aspect of this interactional base in humans, namely the development of an empathetic intentional stance. The route involves a generalization of mother–infant interaction patterns to all adults via a process (cuteness selection) analogous to, but distinct from, RA Fisher's runaway sexual selection. This provides a cornerstone for the carrying capacity for language. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Revisiting the human ‘interaction engine’: comparative approaches to social action coordination’.

Section: The Origins Of Intention Recognition In Communication: 'Cute...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The interaction engine: cuteness selection and the evolution of the interactional base for language

Levinson

2022

“…[72]) and very few opportunities to create a common ground and understanding for the experimenter's intentions. This, though, may be the key to investigating ostension in nonhuman animals that do not share a long history with human communicators [73].…”

Section: Ways To Move Forward: Interactional Paradigms and Letting Go...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Interaction and ostension: the myth of 4th-order intentionality

Sievers

2022

Research in comparative cognition on allegedly uniquely human capacities considers the identification of these human capacities in other species as one of their main points of inquiry. Capacities are applied in their theoretical descriptions to promising empirical data. The conclusion then often is that even though, on a behavioural level, the human and nonhuman cases appear related, on a cognitive level there is no relation whatsoever because the underlying cognitive states diverge in quality. This result seems dissatisfying for two reasons: (1) there is ample empirical evidence that suggests the presence of the capacities in other species, and (2) the claim that the underlying states diverge often hinges on the reference to the theoretical definitions of these capacities only. This opinion piece focuses on the capacity of ostensive intentional communication to demonstrate that the original theoretical analyses often are not befitting a comparative endeavour and should therefore not be used as pivotal reference within comparative research. An outlook will be provided on more promising approaches to identifying ostensive communication, namely an interactive approach that will allow for ostension to not be perceived as a one-turn signalling behaviour, but as interactive, with the possibility of being established in a trial-and-error manner. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Revisiting the human ‘interaction engine’: comparative approaches to social action coordination’.

“…What else was needed for language to evolve? Higher orders of intentionality and group-wide prosociality are now by many considered as the key ingredients of the human interaction engine that could have paved the way for the evolution of conventional languages, given that evidence for these features in nonhuman species remains scarce [3,44,58,64] and because these qualities are partly shared with other, cooperative breeding primates [11]. Nonetheless, it remains to be seen to what extent this disparity between nonhuman and human animals can be explained by methodological constraints.…”

Section: Implications and Outlook: What Have Wementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Third, we learned about important modulators of communicative performance [26,58,64]. For example, studies showed that the relationship between interactants (e.g.…”

Section: Implications and Outlook: What Have Wementioning

confidence: 99%

“…A novel approach of studying pragmatic reasoning abilities in the multimodal communication of nonhuman great apes is presented by Manuel Bohn et al . [64]. The authors analysed signal combinations in chimpanzees through a computational modelling perspective and find that the difference in the communication between them and humans appears not to lie in the kinds of signals being used (e.g.…”

Section: Revisiting the Interaction Engine: Nearly Two Decades Latermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Revisiting the human ‘interaction engine’: comparative approaches to social action coordination

Heesen

Fröhlich

2022

The evolution of language was likely facilitated by a special predisposition for social interaction, involving a set of communicative and cognitive skills summarized as the ‘interaction engine'. This assemblage seems to emerge early in development, to be found universally across cultures, and to enable participation in sophisticated joint action through the addition of spoken language. Yet, new evidence on social action coordination and communication in nonhuman primates warrants an update of the interaction engine hypothesis, particularly with respect to the evolutionary origins of its specific ingredients. However, one enduring problem for comparative research results from a conceptual gulf between disciplines, rendering it difficult to test concepts derived from human interaction research in nonhuman animals. The goal of this theme issue is to make such concepts accessible for comparative research, to promote a fruitful interdisciplinary debate on social action coordination as a new arena of research, and to enable mutual fertilization between human and nonhuman interaction research. In consequence, we here consider relevant theoretical and empirical research within and beyond this theme issue to revisit the interaction engine's shared, convergently derived and uniquely derived ingredients preceding (or perhaps in the last case, succeeding) human language. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Revisiting the human ‘interaction engine’: comparative approaches to social action coordination’.