The Human Communication a byproduct of Evolution Alain

The Human Communication : a by-product of Evolution Alain TROGNON & Martine BATT Interpsy, GRC, University of Lorraine, France XVIII CONGRESO ALFAL- BOGOTÁ, 2017 24 -28 de julio de 2017 Proyecto 15 “Estudios del diálogo” Coordinadoras: Lidia Rodríguez Alfano y Luisa Granato

The limitation of communication by mean of a natural language The misunderstanding is one of our most common experiences of users of a natural language. A misunderstanding can arise from almost : • all the components involved in the use of a natural language ; cognitive, linguistic components; • all levels of the enunciative activity : phonological, syntactical, semantical and pragmatical components ; • and in the pragmatical level : from monological speech acts to all kinds of dialogues (natural to professional dialogues , interpersonal, collective, cultural dialogues).

The limitation of communication by mean of a natural language At the root of any misunderstanding: • the transmitter ; • the receiver ; There is a misunderstanding when the interlocutors of a dialogue interpret differently the statement made by one of them (Trognon, 1987)

The limitation of communication by mean of a natural language Example: • Husband: Do you know where the newspaper is today? • Wife: I'll get it for you • Husband: no, it's good, just tell me where it is, I'll go get it • Wife: no it is I who will go

The limitation of communication by mean of a natural language Gumperz: The husband asks a question which, literally interpreted, consists in asking where the newspaper is The woman does not respond directlty, but proposes to go and fetch it. Which can be interpreted as "I will go and seek him if you do not want to do it. " The husband then makes him understand that his intention was not to make a request but simply to ask him for information. The woman then repeats what she had said before, in order to emphasize that she refuses the intention of going to look for him. “She is now strongly accentuated to indicate his annoyance. "

The limitation of communication by mean of a natural language Mother: Where are your boots? The son: in the closet Mother: I want you to put them on immediately

The limitation of communication by mean of a natural language • Gumperz: The mother asks a question which, literally, refers to the place where her son's boots are, and to the extent that he responds by indicating this place, the mother replies with a direct request. (Right now) suggests that she is irritated to see her son answer her initial question without understanding that it was a request. "

Linguistic communication is structurally at the risk of misunderstanding Correlation between ambiguity and misunderstanding is very strong The ambiguity is an organic property of human communication (Fuchs) The variability is not only a psycho- or sociolinguistic phenomenon, but a constituent part of the linguistic object itself (Fuchs, Weigand, Trognon)

Linguistic communication is structurally at the risk of misunderstanding The ambiguity constitutes a property not only formal (i. e. demonstrable), but empirical Interlocutors strategically exploit the different kind of ambiguity in their interactions: the different kind of ambiguity allows them to establish intersubjective relations that would otherwise be impossible Mutual believe may not be very important from a cognitive point of view, but from a social point of view, it certainly is; because of their subsequent communication possibilities (Sperber & Wilson)

Linguistic communication is structurally at the risk of misunderstanding Ambiguity : an excellent mean of managing step by step the unpredictability of the relationship to the other. Example: Give me the newspaper! Do you know where the newspaper is ?

A communication system whose ambiguity is a constitutive property is not a very good system of communication Ambiguity + Adjustment System = Perfect Meta System = Human communication

Human Meta System of Communication • Integrating the two channels of communication ; • Laying on cerebral (i. e. mirror neurons); • Existing over a large set of social species ; • Being a trans-cultural system.

Human Meta System of Communication • • Integrating the two channels of communication ; • Laying on cerebral (i. e. mirror neurons); • Existing over a large set of social species ; • Being a trans-cultural system.

Interaction Engine = A meta system (Trognon & Batt, 2017) (Levinson, 2006) • 1 A : <///> [a beat with his right hand] • 2 B : ah yes I won’t say anything else because it’s useless. Because we’ll be going back and forth several time before everything can be said… • 3 A : I don’t want to cut you off but there’s I’ve got a list of friends uh • 4 B : ah yes • 5 C : x (g’s interlocutor) and g. . go bake a cake! [laughing] • 6 A : g, you’re done anyway, right? • 7 B : we’ll talk about some other things another time… you can’t say everything • 8 A : h • 10 D : (…) • (…)

Interaction Engine = A meta system (Trognon & Batt, 2017) (Levinson, 2006) The Turn Taking System: • Occurrence of a disturbance and recognition of that disturbance even by the person who created it (phase 1) • Initiation of regulatory procedures (phase 2) • Restarting of the system from its original state (phase 3) • Reapplication of the system (phase 4).

Interaction Engine = A meta system (Trognon & Batt, 2017) (Levinson, 2006) Human people are able to entertain: . An intercultural communication; . A communication with individual suffering of cerebral desabilities (autistic, schizophrenic people, Alzheimer disease…) ; Such a communication is described by Levinson (2006).

The formal structure of the Interactive Engine T 2 : ah yes I won’t say anything L 1 (T 1) a beat T 3 : I don’t want to cut you off but there’s I’ve got a list of friends uh L 2 (T 1)

T 1 T 2: An interpretative relationship L 1 (T 1) a beat L 2 (T 1)

T 1 T 2: An interpretative relationship T 2 : materially realizes an L 2 interpretation L 1 : L 2 reaction becomes a L 1 interpretation by L 2 mutually manifest a beat (L 1 action) L 2 (T 1)

T 3 : the evaluation of T 1 -T 2 interaction T 2 : L 2 reaction L 1 : T 3 L 1 (T 1) L 1 action L 2 (T 1’)

T 3 : the evaluation of T 1 -T 2 interaction T 2 : L 2 reaction L 1 : T 3 L 1 (T 1) L 1 action L 1 ratification + explication or correction L 2 (T 1’)

The chairman repairs his offense • 1 A : <///> [a beat with his right hand] • 2 B : ah yes I won’t say anything else because it’s useless. Because we’ll be going back and forth several time before everything can be said… • 3 A : I don’t want to cut you off but there’s I’ve got a list of friends uh • 4 B : ah yes

One topic per turn • 1 A : <///> [a beat with his right hand] • 2 B : ah yes I won’t say anything else because it’s useless. Because we’ll be going back and forth several time before everything can be said… • 3 A : I don’t want to cut you off but there’s I’ve got a list of friends uh • 4 B : ah yes

Ontogenesis of the Interactive Engine Protoconversations : "ultra social" behaviors Sucking : an "harmonization program" The sucking relationship is a precursor to the interpersonal relationship

CONCLUSION The human evolution invented the dialogue in order to compensate for the imperfections of verbal communication The communication system manages the undecidability of the communication step by step The problem is : how to link together signals from different channels in a unique one. The strategical usability of the human language has not disappeared •