Evolutionary Semiotics: How the Sign Use of Human Came about

1. Evolutionary Semiotics:How the Sign Use of Human Came about 11th Early Fall School of Semiotics “Semiotics of Genre” September 10-16, 2005 Sozopol (Bulgaria) Wolfgang Wildgen, Bremen (Germany)

2. Introductory remarks • Yesterday, I have shown how dynamical structures are relevant even for the analysis of pictures which were traditionally considered as a typical example of static sign-structures. In this context, it became already clear that the underlying capacities of vision/manual action and audition/articulation have strong links, although deep functional differences show up. • Today, I will make a radical move by considering the most far-reaching dynamics one can consider in linguistics: the evolution of human language and the underlying capacity (faculté de language, Saussure). • Less far-reaching dynamics are those encountered in the (cultural) evolution of language families or of a specific language, • The individual acquisition of a primary or a secondary language.

3. Part I The Evolution of a Protolanguage

4. An informed guess of the shape of protolanguage I shall try to respond to the following questions: • What is the most plausible evolutionary era in which a protolanguage existed? • Can artifacts: stone tools, engravings, paintings tell us something about the cognitive basis of a protolanguage (as one symbolic form among others)? • Does the anatomical change of hominids give hints to the shape of a protolanguage?

5. The idea of a protolanguage and the methodology of reconstruction • Since Darwin’s theory of evolution (theoretically already since Lylell’s “transformationalism” against Cuvier’s “catastrophism’”) the basic idea is that of a continuous evolution (i.e., moved by infinitesimal steps). Applied to language, it derives linguistic capacities in a continuous series of steps from communicational habits and intellectual capacities of mammals (and animals in general). • Derek Bickerton assumes an internal stratification of human language capacity, which recapitulates (and thus indicates) an evolutionary stratification. Basically he presupposes an additive effect of evolution, i.e., early developed forms of behavior persist and constitute the stable platform on which later forms rest. He formulates his methodology as follows: • “If there indeed exists a more primitive variety of language alongside fully developed human language, then the task of accounting for the origins of language is made much easier. No longer do we have to hypothesize some gargantuan leap from speechlessness to full language, a leap so vast and abrupt that evolutionary theory would be hard to put to account for it.” (Bickerton, 1990: 128)

6. Any analysis of the evolution of language should strictly follow the general strategy and methodology of post-Darwinian theory including the results of modern genetics. I will consider the traces of semiotic activity of hominids and early man until the upcoming of writing systems as data for the reconstruction of intermediate forms of human language. This direct strategy has two consequences: • Insofar as the contours of early semiotic capacities can be reconstructed from artifacts and art, one can only infer the semantics (perhaps the pragmatics) of a earlier language capacity, not its lexicon or syntax. • As the artefacts point rather to the cognitive level than to the level of linguistic expression, the reconstructed semantics must be a type of cognitive semantics (although it differs from current cognitive theories which have no evolutionary dimension).

7. Anatomical evolution and the shape of a protolanguage • The control of a larger area, the use of centers for communal life, the systematic expansion into new areas presupposes high ecological flexibility and a global spatial orientation. It seems therefore highly plausible that advanced Homo erectus who migrated to Europe and Asia had the cognitive and social capacity for symbol use, i.e., for a language which probably was organized vocally with gestural cues. The power of motor imitation in the learning of techniques, gestures and phonations was already given to higher primates (cf. the existence of mirror-neurons). Thus the cognitive, social and behavioral presuppositions for language were given. • The basic question: Did they speak a language? can only be answered probabilistically: As all conditions were given, they probably did.

8. Can artifacts tell us something about a protolanguage? • In fact, first stone axes were produced around 2, 0 my (the so-called pebble culture). Whereas chimpanzees may use a stone to open a nut or fit a branch for the “fishing” of termites, the pebble culture asks for the use of a stone or bone to chock another one, in order to produce a sharp edge on the pebble, i.e., a tool is used to produce a specific shape (fitted to a large number of uses). Probably other materials (bone, wood, fur) were again shaped using the primitive stone axes. • Artefacts are not only hints at the cognitive level of humans, they are also linked to social life. In order to produce artifacts and to keep fire, a socially organized exploitation of the environment, a division of labor and a mode of social distribution of products must be in place. This asks for rules of collective behavior and language as a kind of rule-governed social behavior not only helps to represent and enact social behavior, it is quasi the symbolic representation of social behavior.

9. The semantics of space and time in a protolanguage The representation of space has to do with frontiers (their transition) and perspectives. • A first perspective is centrifugal, i.e., starting from the self and its basic bodily motions an ‘experienced’ three dimensional space is cognized: front – behind (go), above – below (climb, fall), left – right (grasp with the left hand or the right hand). This space of bodily motion with feet and arms defines the immediate space, where objects may be reached and manipulated. The intermediate space depends on man’s ecology; it can be the housing (the cave, abri) or the village; the distal space contains roughly all possible itineraries (of hunting/gathering). • The second perspective is centripetal, i.e., the self is seen as the place of effect of external causes. The sky, the horizon (typical points where the sun sets or rises), the favored direction of winds, the ridge of mountains may be the external locus of orientation for the self, who is at the center of a force field or gradient implicit in these delimitations.

10. self self Space of chase and gathering Horizon/sky Fig. 1: Force fields of centrifugal versus centripetal orientation.

11. A protolanguage must categorize events and actions (by proto-verbs) and must discriminate stable entities (by proto-nouns). The question arises, if temporal, dynamic, quantitative, qualitative relations between them can be mastered and to what degree. • I will argue that there are intrinsic complexity barriers which could have blocked the elaboration of a protolanguage for a long (evolutionary) time-span, say 0,5 my.

12. Representation of actions and events • The action-concept GRASP involves two stable entities: the body (the hand) and the object. Every point on the lines in Fig. 2 is an attractor, i.e., the perception of a stable entity in the 30 msec window. The whole schema should fit into the 3 sec window, e.g., in the sentence: The father took the book (from the table) (cf. Pöppel, 1994 and 1997 for the neurological evidence) • Fig. 2: Catastrophe schema of GRASP. The book The father (having the book) The father Catastrophe of capture

13. One may distinguish three ways of grasping: • the force grip (e.g., of a branch) • the precision grip (e.g., of a small tool) • the refined grip (e.g., of a needle) finger Force-grip finger thumb object thumb Precision-grip Fig. 3: Topological difference between power grip and precision grip.

14. First principle of a protolanguage • The GRASP schema constitutes a structured (bivalent) action schema with a long evolutionary history and includes a manner specification categorized on topological cues. As the distinction between several precision grips shows, more elaboration appears as soon as more precise manipulations on objects and instruments are developed.

15. Second principle of a protolanguage • The topologico-dynamical schema of grasping assembles causal/enabling/intentional meaning components, which are necessarily present in the purposeful shaping of a tool and it sets the ground of force-dynamics in phonic language

16. Restriction on valence complexity • The iteration of basic action schemata presents a barrier of complexity as the composition is not dynamically stable.

17. Order of emergence • The order of emergence of grammatical features transcending these restrictions could have been: • elaboration of valence patterns (up to valence 3 or even 4), • elaboration of the manner component, • elaboration of the TMA-component.

18. The Design of Lithic Instruments The industry had to consider the following factors: • Form and quality of a stone found (this includes a geographic knowledge of places, where they may be found). • Splitting of the stone and isolation of the kernel. • Separation of sharp blades from the kernel. • Use of instruments for choking stone on one side and use of stone instruments for the manufucturing of other instruments (bone and wood).

19. „Chopper“ of the Olduwai.-culture East-Africa

20. Handaxe in the early Paleolithicum (above) Abbévillien- Biface (Le Stade) Le Champs de Mars (below) Middle Acheuléen (Saint Acheul) (cf. Weiner, 1972: 130) Abbévillien= 600.000-350.000, second glacial period; Acheuléen= 350.000-100.000; third glacial period

21. (left) Moustérien; until 40.000, fourth glacial period; Charente (middle), La Quina (right) , La Quina (all in the Mousterian period)

22. Blades from the Solutréen Blades from the Magdalénien

24. Object (pebble) Substracted piece Instrument Agent Beyond the grasp-scenario As a consequence catastrophe theoretical semantics (cf. Wildgen, 1982 and 1994) contains implicitly an evolutionary stratification of human sign use and language. Fig. 4: Schema of shaping an object with an instrument via subtraction.

25. The restriction on the complexity of (nominal) phrases • The head and its attribute (or non-determiner specifier) are of the same basic type (nominal/adjectival) and the restriction primarily concern the risk of blending two or more semantic spaces. If every noun or adjective is associated with a place in a semantic space (e.g., kinship, color, age, evaluation) then the mapping of one place in space A (say: father) to one place in space B (say: old) is a problem insofar as the spaces are different and may not be combined simply to a conjunct space A x B.

26. Conclusions for Part I The grammar of a protolanguage specifies three hierarchically scaled levels of primary categorization: • Stable entities (no change in the perceptual and classificatory time window and recurrence as pattern (statistical relevance), • dynamic aspects of entities in change and motion (inchoative, egressive, durative), and • bivalent GRASP-schema with qualitative change (capture or emission). The restriction principles may explain why further conditions of control on the combinatorial /mapping /blending semantics had to evolve in order to arrive at a more complex and less context dependent grammar, i.e., at a full-fletched language, and why this took the time it took.

27. Part II Symbolic Evolution in the late Paleolithic Referential art and abstract symbols

28. The origin of art in rock-engravings • Rock engravings and later plastic art in stone may be understood as the origin of representational art. • As this line also leads to the invention abstract (mnemotechnically motivated) signs and finally to writing, the modern cultures of fine arts and literature have their origin in Paleolithic symbol techniques. • Color was originally used for body-painting, later in the context of funeral practices, and finally in the art of caves (after 40.000 BP)

29. Combination (and separation) of pictorial and abstract signs in the Paleolithic period. • (cf. J. Jelinek, 1975, 433)

30. Styled Representations of hands Cave Santian (Spain)).

31. Abstract representations of humans Russia

32. Paleolithic Sculptures Representations of women (so called „Venus of Willendorf“, Austria

33. Paleolithic cave paintingGeographic distribution The so called „franco-cantabric culture“

34. Drawing techniques Monochrome drawing of a horse(Peña de Candamo)

35. Polychrome pictures in the Cave Chauvet (France) Battle between two rhinozeros

36. A group of chasing lions; Cave Chauvet

37. A bison which turns ist head in attack; cave Chauvet

38. Details of horses

39. Methonymic abstraction Sketch of a deer’s head Contours of a deer’s head Giant deer

40. A list of abstract symbols Tectiform symbols 1-16; 1-10 Dordogne ( Les Eyzies) 11-16: Northern Spain (Altamira, Castillo, u.a.) 17 23: isolated signs

41. Art of the Levante (Spain) ca. 9-8 000 BP

42. Transition to the Meso- und Neolithic Norhtern Sahara (Kargur Talh) (Neolithic 4-5. Thou. B.C.)

43. From object-language to writing • Between 8000 BC and 3000 BC very simple „object languages“, where small-scale sculptures represent their objects, existged. • Later two-dimensional contours represented the object-signs included in a jar. • They finally lead to the first systems which may truly be called writing systems. These presuppose the political and economic organization of the first empires and cities. • Cf. Schmandt-Besserat (1978: 82)

44. Transition to writing (the last 10.000 years) • Original functions: • Representation of objects for the purpose of bookkeeping (a sign stands for an object in the economic world) • Creation of a representational universe of discourse (where the buying, selling, transfer., loss etc. of objects is represented). • Calculation (origin of mathematics)

45. Early object-symbols (choice from a field of 12 categories)

46. Hieroglyphs in Egypt Signs for concrete contents Signs for processes

47. Further developments in Egypt Hieroglyphs: First simplifications in the 3rd millenium B.C. Hieratic : Latest text 3rd century AD Demotic: Latest text: 476 AD

48. Conclusions • There is a line which leads continously from artifact-industries already presupposing the semantics and pragmatics of a natural language to art, writing and mathematics. • The basic principles which organize these levels of semiotic evolution should be formulated in a common language. • Such a scientific language must have geometrical and combinatorial powers.