Advertisement

Semiotic systems with duality of patterning and the issue of cultural replicators

  • Gerhard SchadenEmail author
  • Cédric Patin
Original Paper
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Darwin in the Humanities and the Social Sciences

Abstract

Two major works in recent evolutionary biology have in different ways touched upon the issue of cultural replicators in language, namely Dawkins’ Selfish Gene and Maynard Smith and Szathmáry’s Major Transitions in Evolution. In the latter, the emergence of language is referred to as the last major transition in evolution (for the time being), a claim we argue to be derived from a crucial property of language, called Duality of Patterning. Prima facie, this property makes natural language look like a structural equivalent to DNA, and its peer in terms of expressive power. We will argue that, if one takes seriously Maynard Smith and Szathmáry’s outlook and examines what has been proposed as linguistic replicators, amongst others phonemes and words, the analogy meme-gene becomes problematic. A key issue is the fact that genes and memes are assumed to carry and transmit information, while what has been described as the best candidate for replicatorhood in language, i.e. the phoneme, does by definition not carry meaning. We will argue that semiotic systems with Duality of Pattering (like natural languages) force us to reconsider either the analogy between replicators in the biological and the cultural domain, or what it is to be a replicator in linguistics.

Keywords

Replicator Meme Duality of Patterning Evolution Linguistics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Sylvain Billiard and Pierre Boudry for their precious help on some technical aspects of the discussion, which allowed us to make significant improvements to the paper. We are also indebted to Staffan Müller-Wille, the editor in chief of HPLS, and Stefaan Blancke and Gilles Denis, the guest editors of this special issue, for their precious work and suggestions. Furthermore, we would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers, who guided us towards improvements in our argumentation. Portions of this article were presented at various workshops linked to the project ‘Darwinism in the Humanities and Social Sciences’, led by Johan Braeckman and Gilles Denis; we are grateful to audiences for their helpful questions and comments. None of them should be assumed to endorse anything in this article; all remaining errors and omissions are ours alone.

References

  1. Arnold, K., & Zuberbühler, K. (2006). Semantic combinations in primate calls. Nature, 441, 303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blackmore, S. (1999). The Meme Machine. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Blevins, J. (2012). Duality of Patterning: Absolute universal or statistical tendency? Language and Cognition, 4(4), 275–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bouchet, H., Blois-Heulin, C., & Lemasson, A. (2012a). Age- and sex-specific patterns of vocal behavior in De Brazza’s monkeys (Cercopithecus Neglectus). American Journal of Primatology, 74, 12–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bouchet, H., Blois-Heulin, C., Zuberbühler, K., Pellier, A.-S., & Lemasson, A. (2012b). Acoustic variability and individual distinctiveness in the vocal repertoire of red-capped mangabeys (Cercocebus Torquatus). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 126(1), 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bouchet, H., Pellier, A.-S., Blois-Heulin, C., & Lemasson, A. (2010). Sex differences in the vocal repertoire of adult red-capped mangabeys (Cercocebus Torquatus): A multilevel acoustic analysis. American Journal of Primatology, 72, 360–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, T. A. (2012). Introduction to genetics: A molecular approach. New York: Garland Science.Google Scholar
  8. Candiotti, A., Zuberbühler, K., & Lemasson, A. (2011). Context-related call combinations in female Diana monkeys. Animal Cognition, 15(3), 327–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Collado-Vides, J. (1993). The elements for a classification of units of genetic information with a combinatorial component. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 163, 527–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Croft, W. (2000). Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow, Essex: Longman.Google Scholar
  11. Crystal, D. (2010). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language (3rd ed.). Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Darwin, C. (1871). The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: John Murray. Available online at http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/pdf/1871_Descent_F937.1.pdf
  13. Dawkins, R. (1976/2006). The selfish gene. 30th Anniversary edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Dennett, Daniel C. (2017). From Bacteria to Bach and back. Allen Lane: The Evolution of Minds.Google Scholar
  15. Dingemanse, M. (2012). Advances in the cross-linguistic study of ideophones. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(10), 654–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Epps, P. (2005). A grammar of Hup. PhD dissertation, University of Virginia.Google Scholar
  17. Errington, J. (2008). Linguistics in a colonial world. A story of language, meaning, and power. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  18. Fenk-Oczlon, G., & Fenk, A. (2008). Complexity trade-offs between the subsystems of language. In: Miestamo, M., Sinnemäki, K., & Karlsson, F. (Eds.), Language complexity. Typologie, contact, change (pp. 43–66). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  19. Fitch, W. T. (2010). The evolution of language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hall, T. A. (2000). Phonologie: Eine Einführung. De-Gruyter-Studienbuch. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  21. Heim, I., & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  22. Hockett, C. F. (1960/1982). The origin of speech. In: Wang, W. S.-Y. (1982). Human communication: Language and its psychobiological bases. Scientific American, pp. 4–12.Google Scholar
  23. Jackendoff, R. (1999). Possible stages in the evolution of the language capacity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(7), 272–279.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01333-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ji, S. (2012). Molecular theory of the living cell. Concepts, molecular mechanisms, and biomedical applications. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Keenan, S., Lemasson, A., & Zuberbühler, K. (2013). Graded or discrete? A quantitative analysis of campbell’s monkey alarm calls. Animal Behavior, 85, 109–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kirby, S. (2002). Learning, bottlenecks and the evolution of recursive syntax. In T. Briscoe (Ed.), Linguistic evolution through language acquisition (pp. 173–204). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kruspe, N. (2004). A grammar of Semelai. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ladd, D. R. (2012). What is duality of patterning, anyway? Language and Cognition, 4(4), 261–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lai, C. S. L., Fisher, S. E., Hurst, J. A., Vargha-Khadem, F., & Monaco, A. P. (2001). A forkhead-domain gene is mutated in a severe speech and language disorder. Nature, 413(6855), 519–523.  https://doi.org/10.1038/35097076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Marcus, G. F. (2006). Language: Startling starlings. Nature, 440, 1117–1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marcus, S. (2004). The duality of patterning in molecular genetics. In N. Jonoska, G. Paun, & G. Rozenberg (Eds.), Aspects of molecular computing (pp. 318–321). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  32. Marcus, S. (2007). Words and language everywhere. Milano: Polimetrica.Google Scholar
  33. Martinet, A. (1949). La double articulation linguistique. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague, 5, 30–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Maynard Smith, J., & Szathmáry, E. (1995). The major transitions in evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Maynard Smith, J., & Szathmáry, E. (1999). The origins of life. From the birth of life to the origins of language. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Ouattara, K., Lemasson, A., & Zuberbühler, K. (2009a). Campbell’s monkeys concatenate vocalizations into context-specific call sequences. PNAS, 106(51), 22026–22031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ouattara, K., Lemasson, A., & Zuberbühler, K. (2009b). Campbell’s monkeys use affixation to alter call meaning. PLoS ONE, 4(11), e7808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ritt, N. (2004). Selfish sounds and linguistic evolution. A Darwinian approach to language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sandler, W., Aronoff, M., Meir, I., & Padden, C. (2011). The gradual emergence of phonological form in a new language. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 29, 503–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schleicher, A. (1873). Die Darwinsche Theorie und die Sprachwissenschaft (2nd ed.). Weimar: Hermann Böhlau.Google Scholar
  41. Schlenker, P., Chemla, E., Arnold, K., Lemasson, A., Ouattara, K., Keenan, S., et al. (2013). Monkey semantics: Two ‘dialects’ of Campbell’s monkey alarm calls. Linguistics and Philosophy, 37(6), 439–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Acton: Copley Publishing Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sterelny, K. (2012). The evolved apprentice. How evolution made humans unique. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Szathmáry, E., & Maynard Smith, J. (1995). The major evolutionary transitions. Nature, 374, 227–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wichmann, S., Rama, T., & Holman, E. W. (2011). Phonological diversity, word length, and population sizes across languages: The ASJP evidence. Linguistic Typology, 15, 177–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zuidema, W., & de Boer, B. (2009). The evolution of combinatorial phonology. Journal of Phonetics, 37, 125–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université de Lille, CNRS UMR 8163 STL “Savoirs, Textes, Langage”Villeneuve d’Ascq CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations