Cultural Constraints on Grammar and Cognition in Pirahã Another Look at the Design Features of Human Language

This article deals with the factors which cause the emergence of rhythm, its types, hierarchy and the relation of rhythm to life and the human language diversity. According to Aristotle “all types of rhythm are measured by certain movements”. So all events and processes connected with rhythm are rhythmical in nature. Rhythm is a regular reiteration of identical cases, processes and events within the boundaries of time and space. Rhythm is the form of regular motion. However, rhythm is not the result of motion. It is just the movement itself. All types of rhythm or movement, to our mind, are based on energy the absence of which excludes movements, rhythms, accordingly then life, human language, as well as language diversity. Thus, studying rhythm, its types and systemic hierarchy, to our mind, enables us to reveal the mechanism of transition from inanimate nature to animate one, on the one hand, and creation of the styduing diversity principle of nature, as well as language diversity, on the other hand. The main task of a linguistic scholar, as defined by David Crystal, is great interest. To this linguist “the main task of the linguistic scholar is not to improve the language teaching situation … etc., his task is basically to study and understand the general principles upon which all languages are built. What are the “design features” of human language? What are the differences between languages? How can we describe and classify this? How far are they fundamental? What concepts do we have before we can begin to talk about language at all” (D.Crystal, 1997). Our aim, accordingly, is to make an attempt to study the types of rhythm, its systemic hierarchy and the relation of rhythm to emergence of life and language diversity.

Download Full-text

What is duality of patterning, anyway?

Language and Cognition ◽

10.1515/langcog-2012-0015 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 4 (4) ◽

pp. 261-273 ◽

Cited By ~ 14

Author(s):

D. Robert Ladd

Keyword(s):

Communication Systems ◽

Short Paper ◽

Human Language ◽

Special Issue ◽

Design Features ◽

Duality Of Patterning

AbstractThe notion of duality of patterning (henceforth DoP), at least for readers of this special issue, is probably most closely associated with Charles F. Hockett's project of identifying the ‘design features’ of language in order to characterise the ways in which human language is unique among biological communication systems (Hockett 1958: chapter 64; Hockett 1960; Hockett and Ascher 1964). Roughly speaking, DoP refers to the fact that the meaningful units of language – words or morphemes – are made up of meaningless units – phonemes or features – whose only function is to distinguish the meaningful units from one another. Stated this way, the idea seems quite straightforward, and to have it explicitly stated as a property of language seems a useful insight. In fact, though, of all the design features discussed by Hockett, DoP seems to have engendered the most confusion. The idea that meaningful units are composed of meaningless ones seems simple enough, but many complications arise when we look more closely. The goal of this short paper is to document some of the complications and perhaps alleviate some of the confusion.

Download Full-text

The origins of duality of patterning in artificial whistled languages

Language and Cognition ◽

10.1515/langcog-2012-0019 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 4 (4) ◽

pp. 357-380 ◽

Cited By ~ 32

Author(s):

Tessa Verhoef

Keyword(s):

Cultural Transmission ◽

Cognitive Biases ◽

Combinatorial Structure ◽

Basic Design ◽

Human Language ◽

Design Features ◽

Finite Set ◽

Iterated Learning ◽

Duality Of Patterning

AbstractIn human speech, a finite set of basic sounds is combined into a (potentially) unlimited set of well-formed morphemes. Hockett (1960) placed this phenomenon under the term ‘duality of patterning’ and included it as one of the basic design features of human language. Of the thirteen basic design features Hockett proposed, duality of patterning is the least studied and it is still unclear how it evolved in language. Recent work shedding light on this is summarized in this paper and experimental data is presented. This data shows that combinatorial structure can emerge in an artificial whistled language through cultural transmission as an adaptation to human cognitive biases and learning. In this work the method of experimental iterated learning (Kirby et al. 2008) is used, in which a participant is trained on the reproductions of the utterances the previous participant learned. Participants learn and recall a system of sounds that are produced with a slide whistle. Transmission from participant to participant causes the whistle systems to change and become more learnable and more structured. These findings follow from qualitative observations, quantitative measures and a follow-up experiment that tests how well participants can learn the emerged whistled languages by generalizing from a few examples.

Download Full-text

What does the study of signed languages tell us about ‘language’?

Sign Language & Linguistics ◽

10.1075/sll.9.1.04wil ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 9 (1-2) ◽

pp. 5-32

Author(s):

Ronnie B. Wilbur

Keyword(s):

General Model ◽

Linguistic Diversity ◽

Universal Grammar ◽

Human Language ◽

Design Features ◽

Natural Languages ◽

Sign Languages ◽

Signed Languages ◽

Language Universal ◽

Language Learnability

Linguists focusing on what all languages have in common seek to identify universals, tendencies, and other patterns to construct a general model of human language, Universal Grammar (UG). The design features of this model are that it must account for linguistic universals, account for linguistic diversity, and account for language learnability. Sign languages contribute to the construction of this model by providing a new source of data, permitting the claims and assumptions of UG to be rigorously tested and modified. One result of this research has been that the notion of ‘language’ itself has been clarified, clearly separating it from speech. It has also been possible to identify the design features of ‘natural languages’ themselves, and then to explain why pedagogical signing systems are not natural languages. This paper provides an overview of these issues.

Download Full-text

Why Are No Animal Communication Systems Simple Languages?

Frontiers in Psychology ◽

10.3389/fpsyg.2021.602635 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 12 ◽

Author(s):

Michael D. Beecher

Keyword(s):

Cognitive Abilities ◽

Cultural Transmission ◽

Communication Systems ◽

Animal Communication ◽

Bird Song ◽

Necessary Condition ◽

Human Language ◽

Design Features ◽

Simple Language ◽

High Level

Individuals of some animal species have been taught simple versions of human language despite their natural communication systems failing to rise to the level of a simple language. How is it, then, that some animals can master a version of language, yet none of them deploy this capacity in their own communication system? I first examine the key design features that are often used to evaluate language-like properties of natural animal communication systems. I then consider one candidate animal system, bird song, because it has several of the key design features or their precursors, including social learning and cultural transmission of their vocal signals. I conclude that although bird song communication is nuanced and complex, and has the acoustic potential for productivity, it is not productive – it cannot be used to say many different things. Finally, I discuss the debate over whether animal communication should be viewed as a cooperative information transmission process, as we typically view human language, or as a competitive process where signaler and receiver vie for control. The debate points to a necessary condition for the evolution of a simple language that has generally been overlooked: the degree of to which the interests of the signaler and receiver align. While strong cognitive and signal production mechanisms are necessary pre-adaptations for a simple language, they are not sufficient. Also necessary is the existence of identical or near-identical interests of signaler and receiver and a socio-ecology that requires high-level cooperation across a range of contexts. In the case of our hominid ancestors, these contexts included hunting, gathering, child care and, perhaps, warfare. I argue that the key condition for the evolution of human language was the extreme interdependency that existed among unrelated individuals in the hunter-gatherer societies of our hominid ancestors. This extreme interdependency produced multiple prosocial adaptations for effective intragroup cooperation, which in partnership with advanced cognitive abilities, set the stage for the evolution of language.

Download Full-text