Experimental Semiotics

In the last few years, researchers have begun to study novel human communication systems in the laboratory (Experimental Semiotics, ES). The first goal of this article is to provide a primer to ES, which we will do by reviewing the experimental paradigms developed by experimental semioticians, as well as the main research themes that have emerged in the discipline. A second goal is to illustrate what implications ES has for linguistics. In particular, we will argue that ES has the potential to complement linguistics in important ways and illustrate such potential in the context of each of the themes we review. ‘‘It is therefore possible to conceive of a science which studies the role of signs as part of social life. It would form part of social psychology, and hence of general psychology. We shall call it semiology (from the Greek semeı̂on, ‘sign’). It would investigate the nature of signs and the laws governing them. Since it does not yet exist, one cannot say for certain that it will exist. But it has a right to exist, a place ready for it in advance. Linguistics is only one branch of this general science. The laws which semiology will discover will be laws applicable in linguistics, and linguistics will thus be assigned to a clearly defined place in the field of human knowledge.’’ (de Saussure 1916 ⁄ 1998: 15-16, italics in the original). ‘‘If one wishes to discover the true nature of language systems, one must first consider what they have in common with all other systems of the same kind. Linguistic factors which at first seem central (for example, the workings of the vocal apparatus) must be relegated to a place of secondary importance if it is found that they merely differentiate languages from other such systems. In this way, light will be thrown not only upon the linguistic problem.’’ (de Saussure 1916 ⁄ 1998: 17). 1. Experimental Semiotics and its broad implications for linguistics In the last few years, a science has emerged that is very much in the spirit of that envisioned by de Saussure in the first quote above. Researchers who are developing this science, which has been labeled Experimental Semiotics (Galantucci 2009; Galantucci and Garrod 2011), conduct controlled studies in which human adults develop novel communication systems (e.g., de Ruiter et al. 2010; Galantucci 2005; Garrod et al. 2007; Healey et al. 2007; Scott-Phillips et al. 2009) or impose novel structure on systems provided to them (Kirby et al. 2008; Roberts 2010; Selten and Warglien 2007). This article has two main goals. The first is that of providing a primer to Experimental Semiotics (henceforth ES). In particular, we review the experimental paradigms developed by experimental semioticians as well as the main research themes which have emerged in ES. The second goal is that of illustrating the implications ES has for linguistics. In the remaining part of this introduction we illustrate the broadest of such implications. Other implications will be illustrated in connection with the themes we review. Language and Linguistics Compass 6/8 (2012): 477–493, 10.1002/lnc3.351 a 2012 The Authors Language and Linguistics Compass a 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Since novel forms of communication can emerge relatively rapidly in the laboratory (Galantucci 2005), ES provides an opportunity to study a wide variety of communication systems. As intuited by de Saussure in the second quote above, this is an important opportunity because it enables one to investigate human language in very general terms, distinguishing its core mechanisms from the idiosyncrasies of any specific communication system. Thus far de Saussure’s intuition has had limited recognition and implementation in linguistics. In fact, the core of modern linguistics has been developed under two related assumptions, which we will here refer to collectively as the speech assumptions. The first assumption is that speech has a central place among human communication systems and that studying it can provide us with all we need to understand language. The second assumption is that speech can be fully understood from within itself, that is, without studying it in a comparative fashion with respect to other human communication systems. The speech assumptions seem rather reasonable. Speech and the many writing systems derived from it are by far the most common communication systems used by humans; other systems are either much less common (e.g., sign language) or much less powerful (e.g., road signs). Perhaps for these reasons, the speech assumptions are so ingrained in modern linguistics that two well-known and insightful linguists, when they attempted to define the essence of human language, included the use of the vocal-auditory channel as a feature (Hockett 1960; Martinet 1984). An important opportunity to challenge the speech assumptions arose about half a century ago, when researchers began to investigate languages which are not implemented over the vocal-auditory channel, in particular signed languages. However, the opportunity was not readily exploited. In order to persuade the linguistic community that they were indeed studying fully-fledged languages, students of sign language highlighted the similarities between spoken and signed languages rather than the differences (Stokoe 1960). Thus, the study of sign language coexisted for about four decades with the speech assumptions and it was not until very recently that sign language researchers have begun to overtly challenge them (Vermeerbergen 2006). This challenge has direct implications for students of speech. For example, arbitrariness has long been considered one of language’s defining features (de Saussure 1916 ⁄1998; Hockett 1960). However, spoken language is not entirely arbitrary (e.g., Haiman 1985; Hinton et al. 1994), suggesting that perhaps arbitrariness is not a critical feature of human language. Students of sign language recently provided support for this hypothesis, demonstrating not only that spontaneously emerged sign languages have deep and vast iconic roots (Fusellier-Souza 2006) but also that a fairly high degree of iconicity remains one of the defining features of more established sign languages (Aronoff et al. 2008; Demey et al. 2008; Taub 2001). In this light, the relatively high level of arbitrariness found in speech may be considered a by-product of the vocal-auditory channel rather than a critical feature of language. As we shall see below, ES studies provide further support for this hypothesis. More generally, ES can provide an important complement to research with natural languages, for three reasons. First, experimental semioticians can study a much greater variety of communication systems than those that already exist in the world. Indeed, as long as humans can reliably detect and produce signals in the virtual environment created by experimental semioticians, any means of communication can be explored in the laboratory. For instance, a number of experimental semioticians (de Ruiter et al. 2007; Galantucci 2005; Scott-Phillips et al. 2009) observed people creating communication systems in media which had never been used before for human communication (see 2.1.2). 478 Bruno Galantucci et al. a 2012 The Authors Language and Linguistics Compass 6/8 (2012): 477–493, 10.1002/lnc3.351 Language and Linguistics Compass a 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Second, experimental semioticians have access to the full history of the development of a novel communication system and, as we shall see in Section 2.2, this is an important opportunity for thoroughly understanding some of the system’s features. Outside of the laboratory such an opportunity does not exist (but see Roy et al. 2006 for an interesting exception concerning language acquisition). Third, experimental semioticians can readily manipulate the circumstances under which novel communication systems develop. For example, Galantucci and colleagues (Galantucci et al. 2010) manipulated the rate of fading of the forms people used to communicate, and a number of experimental semioticians manipulated the type of interaction which took place within the communities they were studying (Fay et al. 2008; Garrod et al. 2010; Healey et al. 2007; Roberts 2010). Outside of the laboratory such manipulations would be impractical or unethical. Before discussing further the implications ES has for linguistics, let us have a closer look at it. 2. Experimental paradigms and research themes in ES In what follows, we introduce the main paradigms developed by experimental semioticians and then describe five research themes which have emerged within ES. 2.1. EXPERIMENTAL PARADIGMS In spite of its very recent origins, ES has already developed a number of experimental paradigms. 2.1.1. Semiotic Referential Games Some experimental semioticians use a referential communication task. In the standard version of this task, people converse about novel shapes using natural language (Krauss and Weinheimer 1964); in the ES version, the use of natural language is proscribed (Fay et al. 2008, 2010; Garrod et al. 2007, 2010; Healey et al. 2002, 2007; Theisen et al. 2010). In particular, people repeatedly draw a stimulus such as a piece of music or a concept for a partner to identify, but are proscribed from using letters or numbers (henceforth Semiotic Referential Games). Over a number of trials, dyads or small communities of players develop spontaneous communicative conventions to succeed at the task. Studies performed with Semiotic Referential Games all share the important feature that, whereas the set of forms that people use for communication is open (i.e., they can draw what they like) the set of referents to communicate in the game (e.g., concepts or pieces of music) is closed and pre-determined by the experimenter. Because of this, Semiotic Referential Games are particularly well suited to studying the early evolution of sign systems. 2.1.2. Semiotic Coordination Games Some experimental se