February 23, 2007
Robots hold key to evolution of language
Roger Highfield in The Telegraph:
They may look like toys, but these robots have helped to back one theory of the origins of language.
Sometime between seven million years ago, when we shared our last common ancestor with chimps, and 150,000 years ago, when anatomically modern humans emerged, true language came into being.
One idea of how it emerged from the "primordial soup" of communication in the animal kingdom, whether primitive signalling between cells, the dance of bees, territorial calls and birdsong, goes as follows.
Early humans had a few specific utterances, from howls to grunts, that became associated with specific objects. Crucially, these associations formed when information transfer was beneficial for both speaker and listener. And in this way, the evolution of cooperation was crucial for language to evolve.
But this theory has been impossible to prove, given the lack of time machines or lack of fossil evidence of ancient tongues.
Now backing for the role of cooperation has come from experiments with robots - both real and virtual - that possess evolving software. The study is described today by a group including Dario Floreano of Ecole Polytechnique of the Fédérale de Lausanne, in Switzerland, and Laurent Keller of the University of Lausanne, in the journal Current Biology.
More here.
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 12:51 PM | Permalink























Comments
There is no evidence for the emergence of language contemporaneous with the arrival of anatomically modern humans (and in any case most estimates for this event place it somewhat more recently than 150,000 ya). We only get such evidence when we start seeing material traces left of symbolic and abstract thinking, in particular, body adornments (100,000 ya) and painting (50,000 ya). It has been speculated that these cultural changes were preciptitated by genetic mutations that would also have made language possible, and thus that there was a long period in which human beings were physically modern in all but one small but significant sense. This change would not leave a trace in the fossil record, since it took place only in the soft brain, but it can be inferred from archaeological evidence.
Posted by: Justin | Feb 23, 2007 4:19:40 PM
The researchers were actually less interested in the evolution of full-blown human language than in communication in other social organisms, such as bacteria and ants. (I wrote about this more here)
Posted by: Carl Zimmer | Feb 26, 2007 11:51:42 AM
Post a comment