Teaching as evolutionary precursor to language

Abstract

The central thesis of this article is that the evolution of teaching is one of the main factors that lead to increasingly complex communicative systems in the hominin species. Following earlier analyses of the evolution of teaching, the following steps are identified: (i) evaluative feedback, (ii) drawing attention, (iii) demonstration and pantomime, (iv) communicating concepts, (v) explaining relations between concepts, and (vi) narrating. For each of these step the communicative and cognitive demands will be analyzed. The focus will be on demonstration and pantomime, since these seem to be the evolutionarily earliest unique human capacities. An important step is the transition from pantomime for teaching to pantomime for informing and how this in turn leads to communicating concepts. As regards explaining relations between concepts, the focus will be of the role of generics in teaching and communication. Analyzing these topics involves combining cognitive science with evolutionary theory, archaeology and theories of communication. Two factors are important as a background: (i) the evolution of prospective planning, that is, planning for future goals, and (ii) the evolution of a theory mind. These capacities are central in explaining how more advanced forms of teaching, communication and cooperation emerged along the hominin line.

Praxis, demonstration and pantomime: a motion capture investigation of differences in action performances

“…The element that joins these two types of activities is pantomime for teaching, which is similar to demonstration in terms of velocity, movement partitioning and acceleration, and to pantomime for communication in terms of BBMV. This interpretation gives some support for Gärdenfors's thesis that communication, and specifically pantomime for communication, emerged from the teaching context, and specifically from pantomime for teaching (Gärdenfors, 2017(Gärdenfors, , 2021(Gärdenfors, , 2022; see also , for a complementary account).…”

“…As indicated by experimental studies in cognitive archaeology, it is likely that the principal form of such pedagogy was demonstration, which in kinematic terms would involve slowing down the striking action (see Hypothesis 1 in Section 3.1), pointing to appropriate targets, demonstrating core rotation, and manually shaping the pupil's grasp (Morgan et al, 2015). Gärdenfors (2022) builds on this research and proposes a mimetic definition of demonstration:…”

“…the nail being hammered in), but it is also a representation of a praxic action. For both the teacher and the learner, demonstrative movements do not only have a praxic orientation but also stand for an action (Gärdenfors, 2022). Hence, in many mimetic scenarios of language evolution (Arbib, 2024;Donald, 1991;Zlatev et al, 2020), paradigmatically that of Gärdenfors (1995Gärdenfors ( , 2017, demonstration is a stepping stone in the emergence of communication and a direct predecessor of pantomimethe form of communication similar to demonstration but more detached from the praxic context (Gärdenfors, 1995(Gärdenfors, , 2017cf.…”

“…Within this theoretical context, there is a general prediction regarding their kinematics: Demonstration and the two types of pantomime are slower and more exaggerated than praxis (Arbib, 2024;Gärdenfors, 2017). Gärdenfors (2017Gärdenfors ( , 2021Gärdenfors ( , 2022; but see also Arbib, 2024;Zlatev et al, 2020) hypothesizes that the origin of pantomime was within teaching contexts and, consequently, posits the following evolutionary sequence in the development of human communication: demonstrationpantomime for teachingpantomime for communication. His argument, supported by developmental research (DeLoache, 2004;Leslie, 1987;Nielsen, 2012;Pleyer, 2020;Tomasello et al, 1999), is based on the principle of cognitive parsimony, according to which cognitive capacities associated with later stages are built on the capacities associated with earlier stages (cf.…”

“…Brand et al, 2002) and the literature on the evolution of communication (e.g. Arbib, 2012;Gärdenfors, 2017Gärdenfors, , 2022Zlatev et al, 2020;Żywiczyński et al, 2021). Exaggeration is also considered in terms of kinematic emphasis put on select elements of a demonstrated or pantomimed action (Arbib, 2024;Gärdenfors, 2017;Gergely et al, 2007).…”