The Role of Communication Structure in the Progressive Evolution of Grammar

1
The Role ofCommunication Structurein the
Progressive Evolutionof Grammar

• Martin Edwardes
• University of East London
• martin.edwardes_at_btopenworld.com

2
?Non-language Communication?

• The Sender generates a Message for a Receiver
  about a Referent.
• The Referent is something the Sender is bringing
  to the attention of the Receiver.
• The Message is targeted at the Receiver, but the
  targeting can be unintended or speculative.
• The relationships in the signal are invariant
  the Message, the Referent, and the action the
  Receiver should perform are co-identified. A
  single, unsegmented call expresses all three.

3
?Language Communication?

• Language communication has the same external
  components as non-language communication Sender,
  Message, Receiver and Referent.
• Language also has
• Segmentation an utterance typically has more
  than one meaningful part
• Structure an utterance typically expresses a
  relationship between things.
• In a typical utterance one thing is placed in a
  relationship with another, giving the
  propositional form Subject-Object-Verb or
  Instigator, Action and Recipient.

4
?Can the Models be Reconciled??

• The two models have the same external components
  communication is just communication.
• The language message is more complex, but it is
  still just a message.
• Both language and non-language messages have
  meaning.
• The Sender is always me, and the Receiver is
  always you. This is an invariant feature
  throughout communication.
• Messages are themselves an action, instigated by
  the Sender, of which the Receiver is the
  recipient. Sender and Instigator co-identify, as
  do Receiver and Recipient.
• The non-language message implies an action to be
  performed by the Receiver. This is an action
  within the message, and separate from the action
  of messaging.

5
?NO The Discontinuous Model?

• The differences between the models are too great
  to be explained without introducing at least one
  extra factor.
• The nature of the language message is both
  qualitatively and quantitatively different to the
  non-language message.
• The components inside the message are something
  new, and have no parallels in other
  communication.
• Language is more complex than the language
  communication model shows, and the missing
  features create a qualitative difference.

6
?YES The Merged Model?

• In non-language, the Instigator in the message
  co-identifies with the Sender of the message
  (me), and the Recipient co-identifies with the
  Receiver (you). They are invariant and need not
  be made explicit.
• The Referent and the Action the Receiver should
  perform are also co-identified. The Referent
  causes only one message, and the message implies
  only one action, so only one call is needed.

7
?How did the Dislocations Happen??

• Between the merged model and the language model,
  three dislocations happened Sender/Instigator,
  Action/Referent and Receiver/Recipient.
• It is possible that these three dislocations
  happened together, but unlikely.
• If they happened separately
• In what order did they happen?
• What caused each dislocation to occur?
• Were they all communication-related events, or
  were they exapted for communicative use?

8
?Theory of Mind?

• Being able to predict the actions of others is
  only useful if it increases fitness. Theory of
  Mind, therefore, should be directly related to
  control of the selfs actions. Four questions sum
  up the important stages in theory of mind.
• Sense of others what will they do? My reaction
  can be based wholly on their action.
• Sense of self what can I do? I have a range of
  responses to their action.
• Other awareness what would they do if they were
  me? My range of options is also their range of
  options.
• Self awareness what could I do if I were them?
  I can place myself into the role of a third party
  to separate the self-who-knows from the
  self-who-does.

9
?The First Dislocation Referent/Action?

• The Referent/Action is the only explicit element
  in an unsegmented call.
• R/A dislocation creates calls where multiple
  actions are associated with one referent, or
  multiple referents are associated with one
  action.
• R/A dislocation requires a level of volition, so
  permits deceptive calls it should be an
  unstable communication strategy.
• There is some evidence for communicative R/A
  dislocation in
• The Diana Monkey probably boom
• Chimpanzee begging behaviour.

10
?Social Calculus?

• There are two levels of social calculus.
• At the first level, the individual keeps track of
  their own debts to and from other members of the
  tribe.
• The individual has to have a sense of self, and
  be able to answer what can I do? How should I
  respond to my current balance with X?
• This is the individual as bookkeeper.
• At the second level, the individual keeps track
  of others debts as well as their own.
• The individual has to have other awareness, and
  be able to answer what would they do if they were
  me? How will Y respond to her current balance
  with X?
• This is the individual as spreadsheet analyst.

11
?The Second Dislocation Receiver/Recipient?

• Receiver/Recipient dislocation happens when the
  focus of the Sender shifts from the Referent to
  the Receiver.
• The Referent becomes the Recipient of the Action
  in the Message.
• However, R/R syntax is not used in communication,
  it is a feature of social grooming.
• R/R syntax allows the groomer to keep track of
  grooming debts and credits with many individuals
  I groom you becomes I groom X.

12
?Self Awareness?

• Self-awareness allows the individual to see
  themselves as two things the fixed entity in the
  present, the self-who-knows and an entity that
  can be moved through time and possibility, the
  self-who-does.
• Animals without self-awareness only have the
  self-who-does, which replaces the self-who-knows
  as the fixed entity in the present.
• Self-awareness allows the self to ask three other
  important questions
• Reflexion what could I do if I were me? the
  self-who-knows can manipulate the self-who-does.
• Speculation What could he do if he were her?
  the intentionality of others is modelled into
  both instigator and recipient.
• Anticipation what should I do, knowing what you
  can do? there is recursion between
  intentionalities.

13
?The Third Dislocation Sender/Instigator?

• Instigator/Action/Recipient syntax can only occur
  when the self-who-knows can be separated from the
  self-who-does.
• The self-who-knows (the Sender) can see the
  self-who-does as a separate entity in a message
  they can tell the Receiver about things the
  self-who-does is doing, has done and will do.
• Other Instigators can take the place of the
  self-who-does in messages. The Sender can tell
  the Receiver what other people are doing, have
  done and will do.

14
?Reintegration of the Referent?

• With two components linked to the Action
  (Instigator Recipient), linear syntax is
  possible. With three components (Instigator,
  Recipient Referent), it is not.
• However, speech is a one-dimensional, linear
  medium.
• To allow expression of all the components of a
  message, a hierarchical compromise must be found
  a structure has to be imposed.
• A simple syntax of fixed sequence works as long
  as every message has all the items present, or
  items are deleted in a strict order. Language
  does not work like this.
• Language uses a recursive hierarchy to establish
  component roles in an utterance but the concept
  of recursive hierarchy is so powerful that it can
  be reused within itself.

15
? Full Instigator/Action/Recipient Syntax ?

• The language construct becomes a relationship
  between the Action and two of the three
  components. The fourth component is then
  associated with the other three hierarchically.
• One solution is to reuse the base
  Instigator/Action/Recipient syntax of the third
  dislocation. The Referent is related to the main
  triad, or to an item in the main triad, by a
  secondary action, e.g. an adpositional.
• This reuse of the base I/A/R syntax is
  hierarchical and recursive, and acts as an
  effective explanation-after-the-fact for modern
  language.