Origins of Human Communication
Michael Tomasello
Max Planck Institute forEvolutionary Anthropology
Leipzig, Germany
Three Facts
1. Linguistic communication has manycomponent skills.
2. Evolution often makes “new machines out ofold parts”.
3. Not one language, but 6,000: so bothbiological & cultural evolution.
Three Steps
0. Collaborative Activities
1. Pragmatic infrastructure: natural gestures
2. Communicative conventions
3. Grammaticalization of constructions
I. Pragmatic Infrastructure
Human Cooperative Comm.
1. Motives: informing
2. Structure: common ground
3. Intentional Structure: Gricean
communicative intentions &
cooperative inferences
- natural basis of the pointing gesture is gaze following
- then: I intentionally gaze to something to make you follow
-- Dan is already at the library.
-- There’s your stolen bicycle.
-- The library’s still open.
Why does she think thatlooking over there will beinteresting or useful for me?
Not enough that we eachknow privately that this isDan’s bike => shared CG.
Attested Examples of Infant Pointing
Example 14: At age 11.5 months, J points to the door as Dad is making preparations to leave. GLOSS: Attend to the door; Dad's
going out of it soon.
Example 15: At age 11.5 months, as Mom is pouring water in glasses at the dinner table, J points to his empty glass to request that
she pour him some. GLOSS: Attend to my empty glass; fill it up too.
Example 17: At age 13 months, J watches as Dad arranges the Christmas tree; when Grandpa enters the room J points to tree for
him and vocalizes. GLOSS: Attend to the Christmas tree; isn't it great?.
Example 18: At age 13.5 months, after finishing eating, L points to the bathroom in anticipation of going to wash her hands.
GLOSS: Attend to the bathroom; it's time to go there.
Example 19: At age 13.5 months, Mom is looking for a missing refrigerator magnet, and L points to a basket of fruit where it is
(hidden under the fruit). GLOSS: Attend to the basket of fruit; it's there.
Example 20: At just under 14 months, two different children, J and L, have noisy accidents out of sight of the parent; when the
parent comes to investigate, the infant points to the offending object (i.e., the thing he bumped his head on, or the thing that fell
down). GLOSS: Attend to that object; it hurt me.
E1 points
Common Ground
E2 points
No Common Ground
Liebal et al. (2008, Study 1). Developmental Science. 14 month olds
Common Ground: Social Intention
E1
E1
“so what?”
APE GOAL:
I FIND X
Helper -
cooperative
Searcher
SHARED GOAL:
C FIND X
“for me”
“relevant”
Liszkowski et al. (2008). Psychological Science.
12-month-olds: Absent Objects
Chimps = only to hidden object’s known location!
If common groundstrong enough
II. Communicative Conventions
“Drift to arbitrary”
• Iconicity of gestural expression for
those w/ shared experience
• Learners don’t know iconicity- imitation of form’s inferred function => convention
W/ same speaker; NOT w/ different speaker!
Matthews et al. (in press): convention as part of common ground
First Language (& pointing): Why one year?
“In the end, nobody knows why word learning starts at 12 months
and not at six months or three years” P. Bloom, 2000, p. 45.
“I do”
Ability to participate inJOINT ATTENTION/COMMON GROUND
Joint Attention and Earliest Language
• Comprehension R2 = .50 to .60
• Production R2 = .50 to .60
Carpenter et al. (1998) SRCD Monographs.
III. Grammaticalization ofConstructions
• Step 1 is reducing expression of
something that is “given” [shared, predicted
to be predictable] in context
• Learners have difficulty reconstructing
full expression => re-analysis
Shared Attention (given-new)Moll et al. (2006) Cognition &Development. 14 mo olds.
Drum previously shared!
location
object/theme
Prelinguistic Infants: Shared & New in Pointing[Tomasello et al., 2007, Child Development.]
Pragmatic Dimensions of GrammarBeyond Event-Participant Structure
Why don’t we just say John broke the window?
• Referential choice “for” listener– NPs: Fred, he, my new neighbor, the guy who ….., etc.
– VPs: is breaking, broke, was breaking, will have broken, etc.
• Info. Structure “for” listener [topic-comment]– Fred broke the window.
– The window was broken.
– It was Fred who broke the window.
– The window broke.
– It was the window that got broken.
– Etc.
• Marking roles “for” listener
word order
stress
construction
Listener knowledge
interests
expectations
'FLOWER there(point)'
TOOTHBRUSH gimme(beg gesture)
BALL GOOD
GUM HURRY
CHASE you (point)
Washoe et al. and Kanzi
Kind of:
Event-participant
organization
• Almost all directives!
• No informing [what’s new?]
• No declarative sharing
Pragmatic Dimensions of GrammarWhat “linguistic” apes do not do:
• The do not mark roles “for” listener
• No referential choice “for” listener– NPs: Fred, he, my new neighbor, the guy who ….., etc.
– VPs: is breaking, broke, was breaking, will have broken, etc.
• No Info. Structure “for” listener [topic-comment]– Fred broke the window.
– The window was broken.
– It was Fred who broke the window.
– The window broke.
– It was the window that got broken.
– Etc.
No pragmatic dimensions of syntax b/c:
no listener design [based on shared-new]
yes
yes
yes (w/ lang.)
no
no
no
Pragmatics:- shared-new
- coop. motives
- conventions
yesyes
“Syntax”:distribution learn. +
analogy/categorize
yesyes
Semantics:events & roles
conceptualized
ApesPrelinguistic
Infants
JOINT GOAL
Role x Role y
Perspective x Perspective y
Joint Plan/
Intentions
joint
attention
Collaborative Activities
Follow head - evenwhen eyes closed
Follow eyes - evenwhen head stationary
Tomasello et al. (2006). J. of Human Evolution.
Morphology for Cooperation
M: Offer
C: Accept Offer
M: Question
C: Comment/Inform
C: Request
M: Comment
C: Comment
M: Request C Offer
C: Comply Offer
C: Spontaneous
Offer
• Collaborative activities as pre-existing socialcontexts: coordination problems
• Natural gestures as a solution: pragmaticinfrastructure => fundamentally cooperative
• Conventional symbols & constructions asmuch more powerful means of communicationin larger communities with in-group strangers
Conclusion
Conclusion
• Natural gestures as a necessary “way station” onthe path to modern languages
• Linguistic conventions are only possible if thispre-existing, shared intentionality infrastructureis already in place
direct your
attention to it
stand on
headRef. goal
ostensive
point
secret
buzzer
Comm.behavior
Get Apple
fetch itget you to
fetch it
Indiv. goal
Social goal
INTENTIONS
Communicativebehavior
Referentialgoal
Socialgoal
She sticking her fingerout in that direction for me.Why?
To direct my attention to the apple.Why?
To get me to fetch it for her.
INFERENCES
Individualgoal
So she can steal my seat when I leave.Why?Why?…….
Why?