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

Warneken & Tomasello (2006)

No shared goal!

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

Infants on a desert island

only vocalize only gesture

-- 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.

Behne et al. (2005) Developmental Science.

Comprehension: Common Ground

[Call & Tomasello, 2005, review]

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”

Call & Tomasello (2007) book.

Attention Getter

Bullinger et al. (in press). Developmental Science.

*

Selfish – Helpful Apes: P < 0.001.

*

Liszkowski et al. (2008). Psychological Science.

12-month-olds: Absent Objects

Chimps = only to hidden object’s known location!

If common groundstrong enough

Liebal et al. In press. J. of Child Language

Marked pointing must have special meaning.

3 year olds

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

Symbolic communication[Behne et al., ongoing]

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.

Rakoczy, Warneken, & Tomasello (2008) Developmental Psychology

conventional = normative

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

Percept

Action

Goal

Call & Tomasello (2008)Call & Tomasello (2008)

Competition!

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

Passive:

Take -Allow

Take-Allow

Take-Allow

.

.

.

Mother-Child Food Sharing

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?

Human Collaborative Activities[Shared Intentionality]

• Joint goal => commitment

• Coordinated roles (communication)

• Cooperative motivation

• Social Norms