How to Create Shared Symbols.

Human cognition and behavior are dominated by symbol use. This paper examines the social learning strategies that give rise to symbolic communication. Experiment 1 contrasts an individual-level account, based on observational learning and cognitive bias, with an inter-individual account, based on social coordinative learning. Participants played a referential communication game in which they tried to communicate a range of recurring meanings to a partner by drawing, but without using their conventional language. Individual-level learning, via observation and cognitive bias, was sufficient to produce signs that became increasingly effective, efficient, and shared over games. However, breaking a referential precedent eliminated these benefits. The most effective, most efficient, and most shared signs arose when participants could directly interact with their partner, indicating that social coordinative learning is important to the creation of shared symbols. Experiment 2 investigated the contribution of two distinct aspects of social interaction: behavior alignment and concurrent partner feedback. Each played a complementary role in the creation of shared symbols: Behavior alignment primarily drove communication effectiveness, and partner feedback primarily drove the efficiency of the evolved signs. In conclusion, inter-individual social coordinative learning is important to the evolution of effective, efficient, and shared symbols.

[1]  M. Tamariz.  Experimental Studies on the Cultural Evolution of Language , 2017 .

[2]  O. Feher,et al.  Structural priming in artificial languages and the regularisation of unpredictable variation , 2016 .

[3]  Shane L. Rogers,et al.  Stick or Switch: A Selection Heuristic Predicts when People Take the Perspective of Others or Communicate Egocentrically , 2016, PloS one.

[4]  S. Kirby,et al.  Culture shapes the evolution of cognition , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[5]  Ivan Toni,et al.  Conceptual Alignment: How Brains Achieve Mutual Understanding , 2016, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[6]  A. Page,et al.  Deficits in joint action explain why socially anxious individuals are less well liked. , 2016, Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry.

[7]  Riccardo Fusaroli,et al.  Environmental constraints shaping constituent order in emerging communication systems: Structural iconicity, interactive alignment and conventionalization , 2016, Cognition.

[8]  Riccardo Fusaroli,et al.  Investigating Conversational Dynamics: Interactive Alignment, Interpersonal Synergy, and Collective Task Performance , 2016, Cogn. Sci..

[9]  Kobin H. Kendrick,et al.  Universal Principles in the Repair of Communication Problems , 2015, PloS one.

[10]  D. Barr,et al.  Referential precedents in spoken language comprehension: A review and meta-analysis , 2015 .

[11]  Bruno Galantucci,et al.  How communication changes when we cannot mime the world: Experimental evidence for the effect of iconicity on combinatoriality , 2015, Cognition.

[12]  K. Laland,et al.  The development of adaptive conformity in young children: effects of uncertainty and consensus. , 2015, Developmental science.

[13]  Andrea Baronchelli,et al.  The spontaneous emergence of conventions: An experimental study of cultural evolution , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[14]  Simon Kirby,et al.  Culture: Copying, Compression, and Conventionality , 2014, Cogn. Sci..

[15]  S. Kirby,et al.  Iterated learning and the evolution of language , 2014, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[16]  Johanna D. Moore,et al.  Alignment and task success in spoken dialogue , 2014, Journal of Memory and Language.

[17]  Steven C. Dakin,et al.  A texture-processing model of the ‘visual sense of number’ , 2014, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[18]  T. M. Ellison,et al.  Cultural selection drives the evolution of human communication systems , 2014, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[19]  H. D. Swart,et al.  The semantic origins of word order , 2014, Cognition.

[20]  Susan Goldin-Meadow,et al.  Creating a communication system from scratch: gesture beats vocalization hands down , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[21]  Nicolas Fay,et al.  Iconicity: From sign to system in human communication and language , 2014 .

[22]  Olga Feher,et al.  Eliminating unpredictable linguistic variation through interaction , 2014, CogSci.

[23]  Michael A. Arbib,et al.  How to Bootstrap a Human Communication System , 2013, Cogn. Sci..

[24]  T. Mark Ellison,et al.  The Cultural Evolution of Human Communication Systems in Different Sized Populations: Usability Trumps Learnability , 2013, PloS one.

[25]  D. Barr,et al.  Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. , 2013, Journal of memory and language.

[26]  Kenny Smith,et al.  Cultural Evolution and Perpetuation of Arbitrary Communicative Conventions in Experimental Microsocieties , 2012, PloS one.

[27]  C. Frith,et al.  Coming to Terms , 2012, Psychological science.

[28]  Nicolas Fay,et al.  Cultural transmission in the laboratory: agent interaction improves the intergenerational transfer of information , 2011 .

[29]  M. Pickering,et al.  The role of beliefs in lexical alignment: Evidence from dialogs with humans and computers , 2011, Cognition.

[30]  Steven T Piantadosi,et al.  Word lengths are optimized for efficient communication , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[31]  Kenny Smith,et al.  Eliminating unpredictable variation through iterated learning , 2010, Cognition.

[32]  Simon Garrod,et al.  The Interactive Evolution of Human Communication Systems , 2010, Cogn. Sci..

[33]  Bradley Walker,et al.  Can iterated learning explain the emergence of graphical symbols , 2010 .

[34]  M. Tomasello,et al.  Ratcheting up the ratchet: on the evolution of cumulative culture , 2009, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[35]  Simon Kirby,et al.  Systematicity and arbitrariness in novel communication systems , 2010 .

[36]  Simon Garrod,et al.  The fitness and functionality of culturally evolved communication systems , 2008, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[37]  Simon Kirby,et al.  Cumulative cultural evolution in the laboratory: An experimental approach to the origins of structure in human language , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[38]  Jon Oberlander,et al.  Foundations of Representation: Where Might Graphical Symbol Systems Come From? , 2007, Cogn. Sci..

[39]  Alexandra A. Cleland,et al.  Syntactic alignment and participant role in dialogue , 2007, Cognition.

[40]  Ichiro Umata,et al.  Graphical Language Games: Interactional Constraints on Representational Form , 2007, Cogn. Sci..

[41]  S. Harnad.  Symbol grounding problem , 1990, Scholarpedia.

[42]  D. Pelli,et al.  Feature detection and letter identification , 2006, Vision Research.

[43]  Bruno Galantucci,et al.  An Experimental Study of the Emergence of Human Communication Systems , 2005, Cogn. Sci..

[44]  Dale J. Barr,et al.  Establishing conventional communication systems: Is common knowledge necessary? , 2004, Cogn. Sci..

[45]  M. Pickering,et al.  Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue , 2004, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[46]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding , 2004 .

[47]  L. Steels.  Evolving grounded communication for robots , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[48]  N. Chater,et al.  Simplicity: a unifying principle in cognitive science? , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[49]  D. Barr,et al.  Anchoring Comprehension in Linguistic Precedents , 2002 .

[50]  J. Bavelas,et al.  Listeners as co-narrators. , 2000, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[51]  E. Schegloff.  When 'others' initiate repair , 2000 .

[52]  Alexandra A. Cleland,et al.  Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue , 2000, Cognition.

[53]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[54]  S. Garrod,et al.  Conversation, co-ordination and convention: an empirical investigation of how groups establish linguistic conventions , 1994, Cognition.

[55]  J. Bruner,et al.  Cultural learning. Author's reply , 1993 .

[56]  Michel Hupet,et al.  Changes in repeated references: Collaboration or repetition effects? , 1992, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research.

[57]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Understanding by addressees and overhearers , 1989, Cognitive Psychology.

[58]  D. Sperber,et al.  Précis of Relevance: Communication and Cognition , 1987 .

[59]  S. Garrod,et al.  Saying what you mean in dialogue: A study in conceptual and semantic co-ordination , 1987, Cognition.

[60]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Collaborating on contributions to conversations , 1987 .

[61]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Referring as a collaborative process , 1986, Cognition.

[62]  Nancy J. Frishberg.  ARBITRARINESS AND ICONICITY: HISTORICAL CHANGE IN AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE , 1975 .

[63]  R. Krauss,et al.  Concurrent feedback, confirmation, and the encoding of referents in verbal communication. , 1966, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[64]  R. Krauss,et al.  Changes in reference phrases as a function of frequency of usage in social interaction: a preliminary study , 1964 .