Advertisement

Cognitive Pragmatics and Evolutionism

  • Antonino Pennisi
  • Alessandra Falzone
Chapter
Part of the Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology book series (PEPRPHPS, volume 20)

Abstract

In this paper we put forward an evolutionary hypothesis on the role of pragmatics. We are perfectly aware that the definition of the term “evolutionary” is controversial. The matter gets worse when we apply the term to pragmatics, which in turn is not a homogeneous area of research.

Here we argue that pragmatics need to avoid taking two opposite attitudes. The first one is to passively embrace the variability of cultural contexts, and the endless proliferation of their “ad hoc” rules, which would jeopardise any scientific aspiration. The second one is to comply with the principles of logical formalism; such operation would in fact excessively restrict the number of real explicable phenomena, as has already happened with some analytical philosophical approach or, over the last century, with Chomskyan Universal Grammar.

An evolutionarily oriented cognitive pragmatics might escape both traps by establishing a finite number of natural mental procedures that could explain the core principles of any species-specific social behavior.

This approach is based on our attempt to figure out whether contemporary pragmatics is culturally oriented or not, and on the existence of pragmatic studies that rely on naturalistic explanations.

Finally, we will argue that a biologically grounded account is necessary in order to furnish a scientific ground even to the most extreme cultural approaches to pragmatics. This would allow pragmatics to enter the cognitive science’s paradigm, which is considered today the best way to unify human and natural sciences.

Keywords

Naturalistic pragmatics Biolinguistics Darwinian biolinguistics 

References

  1. Abu-Lughod, L. (1991). Writing against culture. In R. G. Fox (Ed.), Recapturing anthropology: Working in the present. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ackermann, H., Hage, S. R., & Ziegler, W. (2014). Brain mechanisms of acoustic communication in humans and nonhuman primates: An evolutionary perspective. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37, 529–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allan, K., & Jaczcolt, K. M. (2012). The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Al-Mutairi, F. R. (2014). The minimalist program the nature and plausibility of Chomsky’s biolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berwick, R. C., & Chomsky, N. (2011). The biolinguistic program: The current state of its development. In A. M. Di Sciullo & C. Boeckx (Eds.), The biolinguistic enterprise. New perspective on the evolution and nature on the human language faculty (19–41). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bianchi, C. (2009). Pragmatica cognitiva. I meccanismi della comunicazione. Roma-Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
  7. Brogaard, B. (2012). Context and content: Pragmatics in two-dimensional semantics. In K. Allan & K. M. Jaczcolt (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 113–134). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Capone, A. (2005). Pragmemes (a study with reference to English and Italian). Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1355–1371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Capone, A. (2013). The pragmatics of pronominal clitics and propositional attitudes. Intercultural Pragmatics, 10(3), 459–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Capone, A. (2017). Introducing the notion of the pragmeme. In K. Allan, A. Capone, I. Kecskes (Eds.), Pragmemes and theories of language use. Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Carston, R. (2012). Metaphor and the literal/non-literal distinction. In K. Allan & K.M. Jaczcolt (eds) The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 469–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. (2004). L’evoluzione della cultura. Proposte concrete per studi futuri. Milano: Codice.Google Scholar
  13. Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R. M. (1985). Vervet monkey alarm calls: Manipulation through shared information? Behaviour, 94(1/2), 150–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R. M. (2005). Constraints and preadaptations in the earliest stages of language evolution. The Linguistic Review, 22, 135–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chomsky, N. (1999). Stemmer, B. (ed.). An on-line interview with Noam Chomsky: On the nature of pragmatics and related issues. Brain and Language, 68(3), 393–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by step: Essays in minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–155). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Coudé, G., Ferrari, P. F., Rodà, F., Maranesi, M., Borelli, E., Veroni, V., et al. (2011). Neurons controlling voluntary vocalization in the macaque ventral premotor cortex. PloS One, 6(11), e26822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Crockford, C., Wittig, R. M., Mundry, R., & Zuberbühler, K. (2012). Wild Chimpanzees inform ignorant group members of danger. Current Biology, 22, 142–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cummings, L. (2009). Clinical pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cummings, L. (2014). Pragmatic disorders. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Edelman, G. M. (1992). Bright air, brilliant fire. On the matter of the mind. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  22. Falzone, A. (2012). Evoluzionismo e comunicazione. Nuove ipotesi sulla selezione naturale nei linguaggi animali e umani. Roma: Corisco.Google Scholar
  23. Falzone, A. (2014). Structural constraints on language. RSL. Italian Journal of Cognitive Science, 1(2), 247–266.Google Scholar
  24. Feinberg, D. R. (2008). Are human faces and voices ornaments signaling common underlying cues to mate value? Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 17, 112–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fitch, W. T. (2000). The evolution of speech: A comparative review. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 258–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fukushima, M., Saunders, R.C., Fujii, N., Averbeck, B.B., & Mishkin, M. (2014). Modeling vocalization with ECoG cortical activity recorded during vocal production in the macaque monkey. In 36th annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology soci- ety, IEEE, (pp. 6794–6797).Google Scholar
  27. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  28. Genty, E., Clay, Z., Hobaiter, C., & Zuberbühler, K. (2014). Multi-modal use of a socially directed call in bonobos. PloS one, 9(1), e84738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ginzburg, C. (1979). Spie. Radici di un paradigma indiziario. In A. Gargani (Ed.), Crisi della ragione. Nuovi modelli nel rapporto tra sapere e attività umane. Torino: Einaudi.Google Scholar
  30. Hage, S. R., & Nieder, A. (2015). Audio-vocal interaction in single neurons of the monkey ventro- lateral prefrontal cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience, 35(18), 7030–7040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hanks, W. F. (1996). Language form and communicative practice. In J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativism (pp. 242–270). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Haug, M., & Jaczcolt, K. M. (2012). Speaker intentions and intentionality. In K. Allan & K. M. Jaczcolt (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 87–112). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298(5598), 1569–1579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hauser, M. D., Yang, C., Berwick, R. C., Tattersall, I., Ryan, M. J., Watumull, J., et al. (2014). The mystery of language evolution. Frontiers in psychology, 5, 401.Google Scholar
  35. Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  36. Hopkins, W. D., Taglialatela, J. P., & Leavens, D. A. (2007). Chimpanzees differentially produce novel vocalizations to capture the attention of a human. Animal behaviour, 73(2), 281–286. Houzeau, J. C. (1872). Études sur les facultés mentales des animaux. Paris.Google Scholar
  37. Hughes, S. M., Farley, S. D., & Rhodes, B. C. (2010). Vocal and physiological changes in response to the physical attractiveness of conversational partners. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34(3), 155–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hughes, S. M., Mogilski, J. K., & Harrison, M. A. (2014). The perception and parameters of intentional voice manipulation. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 38(1), 107–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kecskes, I. (2012). Sociopragmatics and cross-cultural and intercultural studies. In K. Allan & K. M. Jaczcolt (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 599–516). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Kaminski, J., Call, J., & Fischer, J. (2004). Word learning in a domestic dog: Evidence for ‘fast mapping’. Science, 304, 1682–1683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kempe, V., Puts, D. A., & Cárdenas, R. A. (2013). Masculine men articulate less clearly. Human Nature, 24(4), 461–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kempson, R. (2012). The syntax/pragmatics interface. In Allan & Jaczcolt (2012), 529–548.Google Scholar
  43. Klofstad, C. A., Anderson, R. C., & Nowicki, S. (2015). Perceptions of competence, strength, and age influence voters to select leaders with lower-pitched voices. PloS one, 10(8), e0133779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lameira, A. R., Hardus, M. E., Kowalsky, B., de Vries, H., Spruijt, B. M., Sterck, E. H., et al. (2013). Orangutan (Pongo spp.) whistling and implications for the emergence of an open- ended call repertoire: A replication and extension. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 134(3), 2326–2335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lameira, A. R., Hardus, M. E., Bartlett, A. M., Shumaker, R. W., Wich, S. A., & Menken, S. B. (2015). Speech-like rhythm in a voiced and voiceless orangutan call. PloS one, 10(1), e116136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Laporte, M. N., & Zuberbühler, K. (2010). Vocal greeting behaviour in wild chimpanzee females. Animal Behaviour, 80(3), 467–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  48. Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1964). Le geste et la parole (Vol. 2) (trans: Bostock, A., Gesture and speech. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993). Paris: Albin Michel.Google Scholar
  49. Leongómez, J. D., Binter, J., Kubicová, L., Stolaová, P., Klapilová, K., Havlí ek, J., & Roberts, S. C. (2014). Vocal modulation during courtship increases proceptivity even in naive listeners. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35(6), 489–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Macagno, F., & Capone, A. (2016). Uncommon ground. Intercultural Pragmatics, 13(2), 151–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mey, J. (2001). Pragmatics: An introduction. Malden: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  52. Mey, J. (2006). Pragmatics: An overview. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (Vol. x, pp. 51–62). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Mey, J. (2015). On social pragmatics: its origin and early development. Globe: A Journal of Language, Culture and Communication, 1, 209–211.Google Scholar
  53. Mey, J. (2017). Why we need the pragmemes. In K. Allan, A. Capone, I. Kecskes (Eds.), Pragmemes and theories of language use. Springer.Google Scholar
  54. Miller, C. T., Thomas, A. W., Nummela, S. U., & Lisa, A. (2015). Responses of primate frontal cortex neurons during natural vocal communication. Journal of Neurophysiology, 114(2), 1158–1171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Morris, C. W. (1938). Foundations of the theory of signs. International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  56. Nerlich, B., & Clarke, D. D. (1996). Language, action, and context: The early history of pragmatics in Europe and America, 1780–1930. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. O’Connor, J. J., Pisanski, K., Tigue, C. C., Fraccaro, P. J., & Feinberg, D. R. (2014). Perceptions of infidelity risk predict women’s preferences for low male voice pitch in short-term over long-term relationship contexts. Personality and Individual differences, 56, 73–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pennisi, A., & Falzone A. (2016). Darwinian Biolinguistics. Theory and History of a Naturalistic Philosophy of Language and Pragmatics. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  59. Perlman, M., & Clark, N. (2015). Learned vocal and breathing behavior in an enculturated gorilla. Animal Cognition, 18(5), 1165–1179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pisanski, K., Cartei, V., McGettigan, C., Raine, J., & Reby, D. (2016). Voice modulation: A window into the origins of human vocal control? Trends in cognitive sciences, 20(4), 304–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pisanski, K., Fraccaro, P. J., Tigue, C. C., O’Connor, J. J., Röder, S., Andrews, P. W., et al. (2014). Vocal indicators of body size in men and women: A meta-analysis. Animal Behaviour, 95, 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pisanski, K., & Bryant, G. A. (2016). The evolution of voice perception. In N. S. Eidsheim & K. L. Meizel (Eds.), The. Oxford Handbook of Voice Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press (in press).Google Scholar
  63. Puts, D. A., Gaulin, S. J., & Verdolini, K. (2006). Dominance and the evolution of sexual dimorphism in human voice pitch. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27(4), 283–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Recanati, F. (2012). Contextualism: Some varieties. In Allan & Jaczcolt (2012), 135–150.Google Scholar
  65. Remotti, F. (2011). Cultura: Dalla complessità all’impoverimento. Roma-Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
  66. Schel, A. M., Townsend, S. W., Machanda, Z., Zuberbühler, K., & Slocombe, K. E. (2013). Chimpanzee alarm call production meets key criteria for intentionality. PLoS One, 8(10), e76674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Schusterman, R. J., Kastak, C. R., & Kastak, D. (2002). The cognitive sea lion: Meaning and memory in the laboratory and in nature. In The cognitive animal. Empirical and theoretical perspectives on animal cognition (pp. 217–228). Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  68. Thompson, R. K. (1995). Natural and relational concepts in animals. Comparative approaches to cognitive science, 175, 224.Google Scholar
  69. Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tomasello, M. (2014). A natural history of human thinking. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tomasello, M. (2015). A natural history of human morality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Traugott, E. C. (2012). Pragmatics and language change. In K. Allan & K. Jaczcolt (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 549–565). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Vico, G. (SN). (1968) The new science of Giambattista Vico. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Wharton, T. (2009). Pragmatics and non-verbal communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wilson, M. L., Hauser, M. D., & Wrangham, R. W. (2001). Does participation in intergroup conflict depend on numerical assessment, range location, or rank for wild chimpanzees? Animal Behaviour, 61(6), 1203–1216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wittgenstein, L. (1963). Tractatus logico-philosophicus: Logisch-philosophische Abhandlung. Suhrkamp: Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
  78. Zahavi, A., & Zahavi, A. (1997). The handicap principle: A missing piece of Darwin’s puzzle. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Zuberbühler, K. (2005). The phylogenetic roots of language. Evidence from primate. Communication and Cognition, 14(3), 126–130.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonino Pennisi
    • 1
  • Alessandra Falzone
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Cognitive ScienceUniversity of MessinaMessinaItaly

Personalised recommendations