Language in Mind
Psychology of Language
Tilburg University
1
,Chapter 1 – Science, Language, and the Science of Language
Psycholinguistics: The study of the psychological factors involved in the perception, production, and
acquisition of language.
Chapter 2 – Origins of Human Language
Nativist view: the view that not only are humans genetically programmed to have a general capacity
for language, particular aspects of language ability are also genetically specified.
Anti-nativist view: The view that the ability of humans to learn language is not the result of a
genetically programmed “language template” but is an aspect (or by-product) of our extensive
cognitive abilities, including general abilities of learning and memory. Humans alone learn language –
not because we inherit a preprogramed language template, but because we are the super learners of
the animal kingdom. What separates us from other animals is that our brains have evolved to
become the equivalent of swift, powerful supercomputers compared with our fellow creatures, who
are stuck with more rudimentary technology.
What makes language universal is that it’s an incredibly useful tool for solving certain problems that
all humans have – foremost among them being how to efficiently transmit information to each other
(Daniel Everett).
2.1 Why us?
The languages of bees
The dance language of honeybees was identified and described by Karl von Frisch. A bees dance to
communicate about a good source of flower nectar contains at least three things.
1. The direction in which the nectar source is located.
2. The distance to the source.
3. The quality of the source.
Can be compared to human language because human language also critically relies on symbolic
representation – for us, it’s usually sequences of sounds made in the mouth. And in both languages a
smaller number of communicative elements can be independently varied and combined to create a
large number of massages.
To help frame the discussion about how much overlap there is between animal communication
systems and human language, Charles Hocket listed a set of “design features” that he argued are
common to all human languages.
- Hockett’s design features: A set of characteristics proposed by linguist Charles Hockett to be
universally shared by all human languages. Some but not all of the features are also found in
various animal communication systems. (page 13)
Primate vocalizations
Throughout the animal world, it seems that the exact shape of a communicative message often has a
strong genetic v-component. If we want to say that humans are genetically wired for language, then
that genetic programming is going to have to be much more fluid and adaptable than that of other
animals, allowing humans to learn a variety of languages throughout exposure. Instead of being
programmed for a specific language, we’re born with the capacity to learn any language.
2
, Can language be taught to apes?
When left to themselves in the wild, non-human primates don’t indulge in much language-like
vocalization. This would suggest that the linguistic capabilities of humans and other primates are
markedly different. Still, a non-nativist might object and argue that looking at what monkeys and
apes do among themselves, without the benefit of any exposure to real language, doesn’t really
provide a realistic picture of what they can learn about language.
Suppose language really is more like a tool than an instinct with each generation of humans
benefiting from the knowledge of the previous generation.
Apes learning language: Environment matters. Raised in a human environment could raise their
communicative abilities. According to the several studies they showed evidence of Hockett’s feature
of displacement. And of all the species studies they also have shown some suggestion of the features
productivity. Productivity: The ability to use known symbols or linguistics units in new combinations
to communicate ideas.
Among nativist, the most common view is that humans have some innate capabilities for language
that evolved as adaptions. Evolutionary adaption: A genetically transmitted trait that gives its
bearers an advantage – specifically, it helps those with the trait to stay alive long enough to
reproduce and/or to have many offspring.
The contrast between the communicative potential of apes and the lack of spontaneous language in
the wild suggest that certain cognitive skills that are required to master language didn’t necessarily
evolve for language. Left to their own devices, apes don’t appear to use these skills for the purpose
of communication with each other. But when the cultural environment calls for it, these skills can be
recruited in the service of language.
It is possible that the skills that support language fall into two categories:
1. Those that are necessary to get language of the ground but aren’t really specific to language.
2. Traits that evolved particularly because they make language more powerful and efficient.
2.2 The Social underpinnings of Language
Understanding the communicative urge
To some researchers it’s the ability to understand communicative intentions that represents the
“magic moment” in the evolution of language. When our ancestors’ evolutionary paths veered off
from those of other great apes, and their cognitive skills and motivational drives came to be refined,
either specifically for the purpose of communication, or more generally to support complex social
coordination.
Some language scientist has argued that a rich communication system is built on a foundation of
advanced skills in social cognition, and that among humans these skills evolved in a super-
accelerated way, far outpacing other gains we made in overall intelligence and working memory
capacity.
3
Psychology of Language
Tilburg University
1
,Chapter 1 – Science, Language, and the Science of Language
Psycholinguistics: The study of the psychological factors involved in the perception, production, and
acquisition of language.
Chapter 2 – Origins of Human Language
Nativist view: the view that not only are humans genetically programmed to have a general capacity
for language, particular aspects of language ability are also genetically specified.
Anti-nativist view: The view that the ability of humans to learn language is not the result of a
genetically programmed “language template” but is an aspect (or by-product) of our extensive
cognitive abilities, including general abilities of learning and memory. Humans alone learn language –
not because we inherit a preprogramed language template, but because we are the super learners of
the animal kingdom. What separates us from other animals is that our brains have evolved to
become the equivalent of swift, powerful supercomputers compared with our fellow creatures, who
are stuck with more rudimentary technology.
What makes language universal is that it’s an incredibly useful tool for solving certain problems that
all humans have – foremost among them being how to efficiently transmit information to each other
(Daniel Everett).
2.1 Why us?
The languages of bees
The dance language of honeybees was identified and described by Karl von Frisch. A bees dance to
communicate about a good source of flower nectar contains at least three things.
1. The direction in which the nectar source is located.
2. The distance to the source.
3. The quality of the source.
Can be compared to human language because human language also critically relies on symbolic
representation – for us, it’s usually sequences of sounds made in the mouth. And in both languages a
smaller number of communicative elements can be independently varied and combined to create a
large number of massages.
To help frame the discussion about how much overlap there is between animal communication
systems and human language, Charles Hocket listed a set of “design features” that he argued are
common to all human languages.
- Hockett’s design features: A set of characteristics proposed by linguist Charles Hockett to be
universally shared by all human languages. Some but not all of the features are also found in
various animal communication systems. (page 13)
Primate vocalizations
Throughout the animal world, it seems that the exact shape of a communicative message often has a
strong genetic v-component. If we want to say that humans are genetically wired for language, then
that genetic programming is going to have to be much more fluid and adaptable than that of other
animals, allowing humans to learn a variety of languages throughout exposure. Instead of being
programmed for a specific language, we’re born with the capacity to learn any language.
2
, Can language be taught to apes?
When left to themselves in the wild, non-human primates don’t indulge in much language-like
vocalization. This would suggest that the linguistic capabilities of humans and other primates are
markedly different. Still, a non-nativist might object and argue that looking at what monkeys and
apes do among themselves, without the benefit of any exposure to real language, doesn’t really
provide a realistic picture of what they can learn about language.
Suppose language really is more like a tool than an instinct with each generation of humans
benefiting from the knowledge of the previous generation.
Apes learning language: Environment matters. Raised in a human environment could raise their
communicative abilities. According to the several studies they showed evidence of Hockett’s feature
of displacement. And of all the species studies they also have shown some suggestion of the features
productivity. Productivity: The ability to use known symbols or linguistics units in new combinations
to communicate ideas.
Among nativist, the most common view is that humans have some innate capabilities for language
that evolved as adaptions. Evolutionary adaption: A genetically transmitted trait that gives its
bearers an advantage – specifically, it helps those with the trait to stay alive long enough to
reproduce and/or to have many offspring.
The contrast between the communicative potential of apes and the lack of spontaneous language in
the wild suggest that certain cognitive skills that are required to master language didn’t necessarily
evolve for language. Left to their own devices, apes don’t appear to use these skills for the purpose
of communication with each other. But when the cultural environment calls for it, these skills can be
recruited in the service of language.
It is possible that the skills that support language fall into two categories:
1. Those that are necessary to get language of the ground but aren’t really specific to language.
2. Traits that evolved particularly because they make language more powerful and efficient.
2.2 The Social underpinnings of Language
Understanding the communicative urge
To some researchers it’s the ability to understand communicative intentions that represents the
“magic moment” in the evolution of language. When our ancestors’ evolutionary paths veered off
from those of other great apes, and their cognitive skills and motivational drives came to be refined,
either specifically for the purpose of communication, or more generally to support complex social
coordination.
Some language scientist has argued that a rich communication system is built on a foundation of
advanced skills in social cognition, and that among humans these skills evolved in a super-
accelerated way, far outpacing other gains we made in overall intelligence and working memory
capacity.
3
