The Symbolic Mind: Apes, symbols, and the evolution of language

Pedersen, Janni

doi:10.31274/etd-180810-2702

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 198 publications

(103 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Non-human primates in the wild and in captivity can recognize perceptual categories of objects, and may form more abstract conceptual categories (based on kind, such as food, predators) (e.g. Queiroz and Ribeiro 2002;Seyfarth and Cheney 2003;Pedersen 2012;Vonk et al 2013;Slocombe and Zuberbühler 2005). Chimpanzees, in their natural habitats do seem to recognize the differing properties of objects used as tools and can apply that understanding to other settings (Grüber et al 2015:7).…”

Section: Conventions and Categories Among Non-human Primatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Semiotics and the Origin of Language in the Lower Palaeolithic

Barham

Everett

2020

J Archaeol Method Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper argues that the origins of language can be detected one million years ago, if not earlier, in the archaeological record of Homo erectus. This controversial claim is based on a broad theoretical and evidential foundation with language defined as communication based on symbols rather than grammar. Peirce's theory of signs (semiotics) underpins our analysis with its progression of signs (icon, index and symbol) used to identify artefact forms operating at the level of symbols. We draw on generalisations about the multiple social roles of technology in pre-industrial societies and on the contexts tool-use among non-human primates to argue for a deep evolutionary foundation for hominin symbol use. We conclude that symbol-based language is expressed materially in arbitrary social conventions that permeate the technologies of Homo erectus and its descendants, and in the extended planning involved in the caching of tools and in the early settlement of island Southeast Asia.

show abstract

Section: Conventions and Categories Among Non-human Primatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Semiotics and the Origin of Language in the Lower Palaeolithic

Barham

Everett

2020

J Archaeol Method Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In particular, it has been established that, with training, apes can learn vast sets of visual symbols and can combine these productively (e.g., Savage-Rumbaugh et al, 1993; Savage-Rumbaugh and Lewin, 1996; Lyn and Savage-Rumbaugh, 2000; Savage-Rumbaugh and Fields, 2000). Follow-up studies have documented that chimpanzees and bonobos raised in symbol-rich environments can develop a vocabulary and utterance complexity similar to those of 3 year-old children (Lieberman, 1984, chapter 10; Gardner and Gardner, 1985, 1969; Pedersen, 2012). There are also reported cases where chimpanzees acquired elements of American Sign Language (ASL) only by communicating with other ASL-trained chimpanzees (Gardner and Gardner, 1985).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A limited capacity to imitate was thought to hinder the cultural transmission of communicative signs and tool use. Even so, some studies have shown that non-human primates can mimic the actions of their conspecifics and also learn to produce their calls and symbols (Sutton et al, 1973; Gardner and Gardner, 1985, 1969; Pedersen, 2012). Recent research has made it clear that apes can selectively apply a range of social learning processes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Structural Effects of Modality on the Rise of Symbolic Language: A Rebuttal of Evolutionary Accounts and a Laboratory Demonstration

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why does symbolic communication in humans develop primarily in an oral medium, and how do theories of language origin explain this? Non-human primates, despite their ability to learn and use symbolic signs, do not develop symbols as in oral language. This partly owes to the lack of a direct cortico-motoneuron control of vocalizations in these species compared to humans. Yet such modality-related factors that can impinge on the rise of symbolic language are interpreted differently in two types of evolutionary storylines. (1) Some theories posit that symbolic language originated in a gestural modality, as in “sign languages.” However, this overlooks work on emerging sign and spoken languages showing that gestures and speech shape signs differently. (2) In modality-dependent theories, some emphasize the role of iconic sounds, though these lack the efficiency of arbitrary symbols. Other theorists suggest that ontogenesis serves to identify human-specific mechanisms underlying an evolutionary shift from pitch varying to orally modulated vocalizations (babble). This shift creates numerous oral features that can support efficient symbolic associations. We illustrate this principle using a sound-picture association task with 40 learners who hear words in an unfamiliar language (Mandarin) with and without a filtering of oral features. Symbolic associations arise more rapidly and accurately for sounds containing oral features compared to sounds bearing only pitch features, an effect also reported in experiments with infants. The results imply that, beyond a competence to learn and use symbols, the rise of symbolic language rests on the types of signs that a modality of expression affords.

show abstract

The Symbolic Mind: Apes, symbols, and the evolution of language

Cited by 2 publications

References 198 publications

Semiotics and the Origin of Language in the Lower Palaeolithic

Semiotics and the Origin of Language in the Lower Palaeolithic

The Structural Effects of Modality on the Rise of Symbolic Language: A Rebuttal of Evolutionary Accounts and a Laboratory Demonstration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About