Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-30T02:01:34.818Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The emergence of duality of patterning: Insights from the laboratory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2014

Gareth Roberts  and
Bruno Galantucci
Gareth Roberts
Affiliation:
Yeshiva University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The concept of duality of patterning (henceforth DP) has recently begun to undergo new scrutiny. In particular, the fact that Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language (ABSL) does not appear to exhibit a layer of meaningless units (Sandler et al. 2011) casts doubt on the universality of DP as a defining feature of natural language. Why, then, do the vast majority of the world's languages exhibit DP? Two hypotheses have been suggested. The first is that DP is a necessary solution to the problem of conveying a large number of meanings; the second is that DP arises as a consequence of conventionalization. We tested these hypotheses in an experimental-semiotics study. Our results supported the hypothesis based on conventionalization but were inconclusive with regard to the hypothesis based on the number of meanings. At the same time, the task of measuring DP in an experimental-semiotics study presented interesting challenges, suggesting that the concept of DP may need some overhauling.

Keywords

dialogueduality of patterningemergence of phonologyexperimental semioticshuman communicationsign languagesocial cognition
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 4 , Special Issue 4: New perspectives on duality of patterning , December 2012 , pp. 297 - 318
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Blevins, J. 2012. Duality of patterning: Absolute universal or statistical tendency? Language and Cognition 4(4).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornish, H., Christensen, M. & Kirby, S.. 2010. The emergence of structure from sequence memory constraints in cultural transmission. In Smith, A. D. M., Schouwstra, M., Boer, B. De & Smith, K. (eds.), The evolution of language: Proceedings of the 8th international conference (Evolang 8), 387–388. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
de Saussure, F. 1916/1998. Course in general linguistics. (Harris, R., Trans. Reprint ed.). Chicago, IL: Open Court Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Everett, D. L. 2005. Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã – Another look at the design features of human language. Current Anthropology 46(4). 621–646.Google Scholar
Galantucci, B. 2005. An experimental study of the emergence of human communication systems. Cognitive Science 29(5). 737–767.Google Scholar
Galantucci, B. 2009. Experimental semiotics: A new approach for studying communication as a form of joint action. Topics in Cognitive Science 1(2). 393–410.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galantucci, B., Garrod, S. & Roberts, G.. (2012) Experimental semiotics. Language and Linguistic Compass. 6(8). 477–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galantucci, B., Kroos, C. & Rhodes, T.. 2010. The effects of rapidity of fading on communication systems. Interaction Studies 11(1), 100–111.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. 1995. On what to teach the undergraduates: Some changing orthodoxies in phonological theory. In Lee, I.-H. (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm 3, 59–77. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F. 1960. The origin of speech. Scientific American 203(3). 88–96.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F. 1961. Linguistic elements and their relations. Language 37(1). 29–53.Google Scholar
Hoefler, S. H. & Smith, A. D. M.. 2009. The pre-linguistic basis of grammaticalisation: A unified approach to metaphor and reanalysis. Studies in Language 33(4). 886–909.Google Scholar
Hurford, J. R. 2002. The role of expression and representation in language evolution. In Wray, A. (ed.), The transition to language, 311–334. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. & Pinker, S.. 2005. The nature of the language faculty and its implications for evolution of language (Reply to Fitch, Hauser and Chomsky). Cognition 97(2). 211–225.Google Scholar
Kirby, S., Cornish, H. & Smith, K.. 2008. Cumulative cultural evolution in the laboratory: An experimental approach to the origins of structure in human language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105(31). 10681–10686.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. R. 2012. What is duality of patterning, anyway? Language and Cognition 4(4).Google Scholar
Marshall, C. R. 2011. Sign language phonology. In Kula, N. C., Botma, B. & Nasukawa, K. (eds.), The continuum companion to phonology, 254–277. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Martinet, A. 1960. Elements of general linguistics (E. Palmer, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mielke, J. 2008. The emergence of distinctive features. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nowak, M. A., Krakauer, D. C. & Dress, A.. 1999. An error limit for the evolution of language. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences 266(1433). 2131–2136.Google Scholar
Nowak, M. A., Plotkin, J. B. & Krakauer, D. C.. 1999. The evolutionary language game. Journal of Theoretical Biology 200(2). 147–162.Google Scholar
Port, R. F. 2010. Language as a social institution: Why Phonemes and words do not live in the brain. Ecological Psychology 22(4). 304–326.Google Scholar
Sandler, W., Aronoff, M., Meir, I. & Padden, C.. 2011. The gradual emergence of phonological form in a new language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29(2). 503–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott-Phillips, T. C., Kirby, S. & Ritchie, G. R. S.. 2009. Signalling signalhood and the emergence of communication. Cognition 113(2). 226–233.Google Scholar
Stokoe, W. C. 1960. Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communications systems. Studies in Linguistics, Occasional Papers 8. Buffalo, NY: University of Buffalo.Google Scholar
Studdert-Kennedy, M. 2000. Evolutionary implications of the particulate principle: Imitation and the dissociation of phonetic form from semantic function. In Knight, C., Kennedy, M. Studdert & Hurford, J. R. (eds.), The evolutionary emergence of language, 161–176. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Verhoef, T., Kirby, S. & Padden, C.. 2011. Cultural emergence of combinatorial structure in an artificial whistled language. In Carlson, L., Hölscher, C. & Shipley, T. (eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 483–488. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Zuidema, W. & de Boer, B.. 2009. The evolution of combinatorial phonology. Journal of Phonetics 37(2). 125–144.Google Scholar