Theory in Biosciences

, Volume 127, Issue 3, pp 205–214 | Cite as

A game theoretical approach to the evolution of structured communication codes

Original Paper

Abstract

Structured meaning-signal mappings, i.e., mappings that preserve neighborhood relationships by associating similar signals with similar meanings, are advantageous in an environment where signals are corrupted by noise and sub-optimal meaning inferences are rewarded as well. The evolution of these mappings, however, cannot be explained within a traditional language evolutionary game scenario in which individuals meet randomly because the evolutionary dynamics is trapped in local maxima that do not reflect the structure of the meaning and signal spaces. Here we use a simple game theoretical model to show analytically that when individuals adopting the same communication code meet more frequently than individuals using different codes—a result of the spatial organization of the population—then advantageous linguistic innovations can spread and take over the population. In addition, we report results of simulations in which an individual can communicate only with its K nearest neighbors and show that the probability that the lineage of a mutant that uses a more efficient communication code becomes fixed decreases exponentially with increasing K. These findings support the mother tongue hypothesis that human language evolved as a communication system used among kin, especially between mothers and offspring.

Keywords

Evolution of communication Population dynamics Evolutionary games 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Air Force Material Command, USAF, under grant number FA9550-06-1-0202, and in part by CNPq and FAPESP, Project No. 04/06156-3. The US Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Governmental purpose notwithstanding any copyright notation thereon.

References

  1. Abbott B (2000) Fodor and Lepore on meaning similarity and compositionality. J Philos 97:454–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allee WC (1931) Animal aggregations. A study in general sociology. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  3. Brighton H, Smith K, Kirby S (2005) Language as an evolutionary system. Phys Life Rev 2:177–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cangelosi A (2001) Evolution of communication and language using signals, symbols, and words. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 5:93–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cavalli-Sforza LL, Feldman MW (1983) Paradox of the evolution of communication and of social interactivity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 80:2017–2021PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chomsky N (1972) Language and mind. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Churchland PM (1998) Conceptual similarity across sensory and neural diversity: the Fodor/Lepore challenge answered. J Philos 95:5–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Courchamp F, Clutton-Brock T, Grenfell B (1999) Inverse density dependence and the Allee effect. Trends Ecol Evol 14:405–410PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dawkins R, Krebs JR (1978) Animal signals: information or manipulation? In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach. Blackwel, Oxford, pp 282–309Google Scholar
  10. Deacon TW (1997) The symbolic species. W.W. Norton & Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. de Saussure F (1966) Course in general linguistics. Translated by Wade Baskin. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Dunbar R (1996) Grooming, gossip, and the evolution of language. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Eshel I, Cavalli-Sforza LL (1982) Assortement of encounters and evolution of cooperativeness. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 79:1331–1335PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ewens WJ (2004) Mathematical population genetics, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Fitch WT (2004) Kin selection and mother tongues: a neglected component in language evolution. In: Oller K, Griebel U (eds) Evolution of communication systems: a comparative approach. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 275–296Google Scholar
  16. Fodor J (1983) The modularity of mind. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Fodor J, Lepore E (1999) All at sea in semantic space: Churchland on meaning similarity. J Philos 96:381–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fontanari JF, Perlovsky LI (2007) Evolving compositionality in evolutionary language games. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 11:758–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fudenberg D, Tirole J (1991) Game theory. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Gordon P (2004) Numerical cognition without words: evidence from Amazonia. Science 306:496–499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hurford JR (1989) Biological evolution of the Saussurean sign as a component of the language acquisition device. Lingua 77:187–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kinzler KD, Dupoux E, Spelke ES (2007) The native language of social cognition. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:12577–12580PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Maynard Smith J (1982) Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Michod RE (1995) Eros and evolution: a natural philosophy of sex. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  25. Mitchell M (1996) An introduction to genetic algorithms. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Nettle D (1999) Linguistic diversity. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. Noble J (2000) Cooperation, competition and the evolution of prelinguistic communication. In: Knight C, Studdert-Kennedy M, Hurford J (eds) The evolutionary emergence of language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 40–61Google Scholar
  28. Nowak MA, Krakauer DC (1999) The evolution of language. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:8028–8033PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nowak MA, Plotkin JB, Krakauer DC (1999) The evolutionary language game. J Theor Biol 200:147–162PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nowak MA, Komarova NL, Niyogi P (2002) Computational and evolutionary aspects of language. Nature 417:611–617PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nowak MA, Sasaki A, Taylor C, Fudenberg D (2004) Emergence of cooperation and evolutionary stability in finite populations. Nature 428:646–650PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Oliphant M (1996) The dilemma of Saussurean communication. Biosystems 37:31–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Patriarca M, Leppanen T (2004) Modeling language competition. Phys A 338:296–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pawlowitsch C (2007) Finite populations choose an optimal language. Available at http://homepage.univie.ac.at/christina.pawlowitsch/4-finite-populations-language-game-2.pdf (Unpublished)
  35. Perlovsky LI (2006) Fuzzy dynamic logic. New Math Nat Comp 2:43–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Perlovsky LI (2007) Evolution of languages, consciousness, and cultures. IEEE Comput Intell Soc Mag 2:25–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Petitto LA (1994) Language in the prelinguistic child. In: Bloom P (ed) Language acquisition: core readings. MIT/Bradford Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  38. Pinker S (1994) The language instinct. Penguin Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. Pinker S, Bloom P (1990) Natural language and natural selection. Behav Brain Sci 13:707–784Google Scholar
  40. Radick G (2002) Darwin on language and selection. Selection 3:7–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reidys CM, Stadler PF (2001) Neutrality in fitness landscapes. Appl Math Comp 117:321-350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schuster P, Stadler PF (2002) Networks in molecular evolution. Complexity 8:34–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Seyfarth RM, Cheney DL, Marler P (1980) Monkey responses to three different alarm calls: evidence of predator classification and semantic classification. Science 210:801–803PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Smith K, Kirby S, Brighton H (2003) Iterated learning: a framework for the emergence of language. Artif Life 9:371–386PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wright S (1921) Systems of mating. III. Assortative mating based on somatic resemblance. Genetics 6:144–161PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Zahavi A (1975) Mate selection: a selection for a handicap. J Theor Biol 53:205–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zahavi A (1993) The fallacy of conventional signalling. Proc R Soc Lond B 340:227–230Google Scholar
  48. Zuidema W (2003) Optimal communication in a noisy and heterogeneous environment. Lect Notes Artif Intell 2801:53–563Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto de Física de São CarlosUniversidade de São PauloSão CarlosBrazil
  2. 2.Harvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations