The evolution of language

Abstract

The emergence of language was a defining moment in the evolution of modern humans. It was an innovation that changed radically the character of human society. Here, we provide an approach to language evolution based on evolutionary game theory. We explore the ways in which protolanguages can evolve in a nonlinguistic society and how specific signals can become associated with specific objects. We assume that early in the evolution of language, errors in signaling and perception would be common. We model the probability of misunderstanding a signal and show that this limits the number of objects that can be described by a protolanguage. This ''error limit'' is not overcome by employing more sounds but by combining a small set of more easily distinguishable sounds into words. The process of ''word formation'' enables a language to encode an essentially unlimited number of objects. Next, we analyze how words can be combined into sentences and specify the conditions for the evolution of very simple grammatical rules. We argue that grammar originated as a simplified rule system that evolved by natural selection to reduce mistakes in communication.Our theory provides a systematic approach for thinking about the origin and evolution of human language.

One-third rules with equality: Second-order evolutionary stability conditions in finite populations

“…That is, the cumulated payoff differences determine the sign of the first derivative. Further, and (13) whence (14) Therefore, as stated in Nowak et al (2004): (15) For large N, this leads to the condition that (16) Likewise, (17) However if a + 2b = c + 2d, we have to look at the rest of the terms in the equation (15) provided N is large enough.…”

“…Consider a sender-receiver game in the style of Nowak and Krakauer (1999). There are n events that potentially become the object of communication, and that there are m available signs.…”

The noun/verb and predicate/argument structures

“…Thus, the grammar of NL seems to have evolved to reflect the underlying "grammar" of the world we live in. Observe, however, that while it is reasonable to assume that events were conceptualized before the emergence of NL, it is not self-evident that they were conceptualized the way Nowak and Krakauer (1999) propose. In addition, there is the problem of metalanguage: Nowak and Krakauer's formulation "somebody does something, something happens to somebody" already includes, i.e.…”

“…in protolanguage) to support that distinction. Nowak and Krakauer (1999) have hypothesized that the N/V distinction reflects the natural way humans perceive reality -specifically, conceptualizing it as a series of events: somebody does something, something happens to somebody, etc. -simple constructions that, minimally, should require nouns and verbs (or, as I more conservatively suggest, LAs and LPs) to be expressed in modern language.…”

“…Then, if Hurford (2001Hurford ( , 2003bHurford ( , 2003c) is correct about the cognitive/ perceptual predicate/argument structure being common among mammals, it is plausible that the cognitive/perceptual predicate/argument structure was mapped onto conceptualization in some species 3 , resulting in a conceptual predicate/ argument structure, which in turn gave rise to the linguistic predicate/argument structure in humans (after the emergence of protolanguage -cf. Bickerton 1998Bickerton , 2000Bickerton , 2002Bickerton , 2007Jackendoff 1999;Nowak & Krakauer 1999;Wray 2000). Section 3.3 analyzes the question of a possible evolutionary priority of linguistic argument over linguistic predicate or vice versa, concluding, with a number of new (as compared to Heine & Kuteva 2002 arguments from a variety of domains that the evidence for linguistic arguments predating linguistic predicates is overwhelming (Luuk in press-a).…”