Language as a biocultural niche and symbolic ground

Language as a biocultural niche and symbolic ground of cognitive artefacts Chris Sinha EBICC 2009 chris. sinha@port. ac. uk

Summary n n The biology of language needs to be understood in both evolutionary and ecological terms Language is a constructed biocultural niche Language is epigenetically developed and learned Language is the symbolic ground of cognitive artefacts

Extended Embodiment n The body is our general medium for having a world … Sometimes the meaning aimed at cannot be achieved by the body’s natural means; it must then build itself an instrument, and it projects thereby around itself a cultural world. Merleau-Ponty 1962: 146.

The traditional paradigm in the human sciences n n n Culture is opposed to Nature Culture (like language) is uniquely human Language can therefore be either part of (unique) human nature (nativism), or part of (unique) human culture (environmentalism) More recently: there is an interaction between the two (“gene-culture co-evolution”) Language learning is viewed as the “exposure” of an organism to an “input” which the learner must internalize

Problems n The human genome is not sufficiently unique for nativism to be plausible n n 95 -98% overlap with chimpanzee genome No difference of orders of magnitude in genetic material available for coding (hgp) Therefore the human language capacity is probably not genetically encoded Culture is not uniquely human n Suggesting that culture is part of nature So we need a biological account of culture And perhaps a cultural account of human biology

Biology and culture n n Does this mean sociobiology? No, though (for example) E. O. Wilson has indeed made a similar point (the theory of consilience) However, reductionism is not the only alternative: theory of epigenesis proposes that, developmentally, the constructivist relationship between biology and culture is a two -way street An ecological approach to the language environment views language as a biocultural niche supporting and constraining effective organismic communicative action

Neo-Darwinism: the standard story n n n n Q: What is the unit of selection? A: The gene, or (sub-)populations of interacting genes. Q: What does the selecting? A: The environment (natural selection) or other genes (sexual selection and kin selection) Q: What is selected? A: Fitness Q: What’s that? A: Differential reproductive success

The problem with neo-Darwinism What is actually selected (“site of selection”)? n n n Genes do not come singly but as combinations (genotypes) “packaged” in organisms (phenotypes) So at the very least it is organisms, not genes, which are subject to direct selection pressure The site of selection is the organism, not the gene. The level of organism is also essential for understanding epigenesis Organisms are morphological individuals (though not “essentially” and perhaps not necessarily), but morphology is not the site of selection It is the functioning, behaving organism which is the replicator and site of selection (Piaget: The leading role of behaviour in evolution)

Darwinism beyond neo-Darwinism Integrating ecology into evolution n Neo-Darwinism is based upon population genetics plus a shaky “central dogma” It neglects the causal role in the shaping of the environment by the organism Examples: n n The path, the prey and the predator The hoof and the steppe Beavers and bower birds: niche construction The termite mound and the “group organism”

Constructing your own affordances n n n In Gibson’s ecological psychology, affordances constitute the environment for effective action and perception (behaviour) But Gibson neglects the fact that affordances may be constructed by the animal (nests are for nesting, burrows are for burrowing) In such cases, the site of selection can be considered to be the organism in its selfconstructed niche (organism-niche coupling)

Laland et al. ’s model n n n A phenogenotype is a species-specific organism-niche combination, functionally equivalent to an organism (cf Dawkins’ “extended phenotype”). (my definition): a class of interacting genes in a bound relationship with some aspect of a self-constructed environment So the site of selection is now organism plus constructed niche

Human culture and language n n n From an ecological-evolutionary point of view, culture is phenogenotypic Human culture is symbolic and linguistic Language is a biocultural niche, and the capacity to use and acquire it involves the evolution and replication of a phenogenotypical “biocultural complex” Succinctly: the human language capacity is phenogenotypic, not “inscribed in the genes” How, then, do individuals acquire language?

Epigenetic development n n n Elaboration Construction Unidirectionality (time’s arrow) Irreversibility Examples: Birdsong n Human natural language n

Epigenesis defined n n In epigenesis the developmental trajectory and final form of the developing behaviour are a consequence both the environmental information, and of the genetically encoded information. A genetically specified initial behavioural repertoire is elaborated through experience of a relevant environment, yielding an envelope of potential trajectories and outcomes. The process of elaboration is directional, and once it has taken place the initial plasticity of the embryonic, or unelaborated, repertoire is largely (though not necessarily wholly) lost. Epigenesis involves a developmental transition from relative organismic plasticity and informational openness, to relative rigidity and informational closure.

Epigenesis and the symbolic species What makes humans unique is not an innate language acquisition device plus a variety of other species-specific innate cognitive modules, but a generalized semiotic or symbolic capacity epigenetically developed from a suite of cognitive capacities largely shared with other species, but attaining higher levels of organization in humans.

Learning and using a language n n The grammar of the language is in the language, just as the structure of the nest is in the nest. The capacity for language is thus a cognitive-behavioural relationship between language user and the constituents of language, just as the capacity for building a nest is a cognitive-behavioural relationship between the builder and the constituents of the nest; and it is this relationship that, in each case, has been selected for in evolution. There is no need for the organism to possess an internal model of the grammar of a language to account for language acquisition, any more than the building of a nest requires an internal model of the nest.

Epigenesis, ecology and evolution n Augmented epigenesis is advantageous for organisms in which phenogenotypic couplings are both frequent and variable, which is an appropriate general description of the human cultural organism. Regulatory genes augmenting epigenetic openness can therefore be expected to have been phenogenotypically selected for in the human genome This in turn permits further adaptive selection for domain-specific learning in the semiotic biocultural complex, in particular for language.

The contextuality of language n n The class of organisms with the language capacity (normally developing humans) is thus a phenogenotypic replicator systemically associated with a wider biocultural complex of symbolic and constructive cognitive capacities, also of a phenogenotypic nature Individual language acquisition and use is situated in the contexts of actuation of these inter-related capacities, and is therefore profoundly socially and semiotically contextual

Language and cognitive artefacts n n Language is culturally and materially situated, that is, dynamically embedded within a semiotic network which includes symbolic and non-symbolic artefacts. Language is the symbolic ground for a specific class of artefacts that we can designate as cognitive artefacts

Technologies in general n Amplify human powers (Bruner) Motor (hammer) n Perception (telescope, telephone) n Cognition/thinking (abacus) n n Artefacts Made not found (cultural affordance) n Embody intentionality n Signify function or use value n

Augmentation, potentiation, constitution n n Technologies may augment existing powers (bow and arrow) They may potentiate new ones (needle and thread) Constituting new practices (sewing) And bringing into being new social relations Eg print capitalism – Benedict Anderson

Artefact function, signification, representation n n Artefacts have intentionally designed canonical functions (eg cup / containment) The function is afforded by the artefact Artefacts signify their canonical function by “counting as” (Searle) a category member, and being “perceived as” such Cognitive artefacts also necessarily have a representational sign function

Materiality and semiotic mediation n Vygotsky emphasized the importance of semiotic mediation in transforming cognition and cognitive development, focusing on the internalization of conventional signs originating in contexts of discursive practice. He attributed great importance to the formative role of language in the emergence of “inner speech” and “verbal thought”, but his employment of the concept of semiotic mediation also encompassed the use of non-systematic signs, including objects-as-signifers (Vygotsky’s handkerchief) He paid little attention to systematic, linguistically grounded cognitive artefacts

Tool and Sign n n Vygosky, like many others, also pointed to the analogy between sign and tool, distinguishing the former as world-directed and the latter as mind-directed But he did not address that class of artefacts that unite the sign and tool functions, cognitive artefacts, which are both world and mind directed

CULTURE Material culture Symbolic culture Activity/Practice TOOL SIGN World directed Mind directed COGNITIVE ARTEFACT

Cognitive artefacts and cultural schemas n n n Cognitive artefacts canonically support conceptual and symbolic processes in specific meaning domains Examples: notational systems, dials, calendars, compasses Cultural and cognitive schemas organizing e. g. time and number can be considered as dependent on, not just expressed by, cognitive artefacts

Cognitive artefacts have a material, cognitive and social history n n The invention and perfection of the calendar (going back to Babylon) and the clock is well documented These artefacts made possible thinking about “Time as Such”, and time-based as opposed to event-based time interval systems Which are not universal And the absence of which is correlated with the absence of linguistic space-time analogical mapping (Silva Sinha et al in press)

Representation and the sign function n Cognitive artefacts can now be defined as those artefacts that intentionally and canonically incorporate or embody a representational sign function, often supporting the cognitive organization of a specific meaning domain n n n A book A spreadsheet But not: Vygotsky’s handkerchief (non-canonical) A telephone (no sign function) A computer (no intrinsic representational function)

Representation and notation n Notational systems are by definition cognitive artefacts, grounded in the symbolic function of language Many cognitive artefacts inherit their sign function from notational systems In doing so they may constitute new conceptual domains (eg calendars and “Time as Such”)

Cognitive artefacts in history n n n The history of the human mind is the cultural history of the invention and use of cognitive artefacts Which in turn transform wider technologies and forces of production and potentiate new relations of production Domain-constituting cognitive artefacts are of particular significance

What about language n n Are languages cognitive artefacts? No, because they are (for our species) found not made But the prehistory of language is cognitiveartefactual as well as biological, and language is transformative of cognition Language is a biocultural niche and social institution to which we have adapted in evolution, and which grounds cognitive artefacts that are transformative of the cultural niche

Extended embodiment (What it means to be human) n n The human organism, by virtue of the semiotic status of the body and the normative shaping of its activities in a cultural field, has a "dual ontology” It is both culturally constituted as a constituent of the semiosphere and, at a purely biological level, a genetic individual. The body is part of the system which extends beyond the body, as well as being the originating sine qua non of that system. While non-human organisms are simplex, the human organism is duplex, and its coupling with constructed niches involves an epigenetic process of autoconstruction, including and importantly linguistically grounded symbolic niches embodied in cognitive artefacts