Advertisement

How did Humans become Behaviorally Modern? Revisiting the “Art First” Hypothesis

  • Rita NolanEmail author
Chapter
  • 1.3k Downloads
Part of the Interdisciplinary Evolution Research book series (IDER, volume 1)

Abstract

Numerous impressive proposals addressing the title question have been made that appear to be rich, coherent, and stimulating but are either theoretically incomplete or empirically weak. It is proposed here that recent scientific results provide the elements for an empirically robust hypothesis that fills some theoretical gaps. Prompted by Henshilwood’s archeological discovery at Blombos SA and drawing from Tomasello’s results in comparative psychology on shared intentionality and from Rizzolotti and Arbib’s results in neuropsychology on mirror neurons, and adapting Sterelny’s notion of decoupling, an empirically robust hypothesis is proposed: deliberate symbolic artifacts of material culture preceded, triggered, and facilitated the origination of modern language and abstract thought. Of the three classic features of modern humans—art, language, and abstract thought—language has been an exclusive focus of many twentieth-century theorists, a focus attributed to advances in logic and computational modeling, with background assumptions from a simplistic epistemology. Hypotheses by Cassirer and Langer that art was prior to and facilitated the origination of language were dismissed by what we now know were false premises. It is proposed here that art enabled the critical features of displacement and communally shared semantic content required by human languages. The proposal also provides a causal answer to Harnad’s “symbol grounding problem.” A first-approximation sketch of the empirical model is given.

Keywords

Decoupling Mirror neurons Shared imtentionality 

References

  1. Arbib M (2005) From monkey like action recognition to human language: an evolutionary framework for neurolinguistics. Behav Brain Sci 28:105–167. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X05000038 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Arbib M (2012) How the brain got language: the mirror system hypothesis (studies in the evolution of language). Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Austin JL (1962) Sense and sensibilia. The Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Balter M (2010) Did working memory spark creative culture? Science 328:160–163. doi: 10.1126/science.328.5975.160 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruner J (1973) Beyond the information given. WW Norton and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Carnap R (1928) Der Logische Aufbau der Welt. Felix Meiner Verlag, Leipzig. English edition: Carnap R (1967) The logical structure of the world: pseudoproblems in philosophy (trans: George RA). University of California Press, CAGoogle Scholar
  7. Cassirer E (1923) Language and myth. (trans: Langer S (1946)) Courier Dover Publication, ChelmsfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Cassirer E (1923–1929) Tr 1955. The philosophy of symbolic forms. Yale, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  9. Chomsky N (1957) Syntactic structures. Mouton and Co, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  10. Chomsky N (1959) A review of Skinner’s verbal behavior. Language 35:26–58. doi: 10.2307/411334 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chomsky N (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark A (1987) The kludge in the machine. Mind Lang 2:277–300. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0017.1987.tb00123.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Corballis M (1999) The gestural origins of language. Am Sci 87:138–146. doi: 10.1511/1999.2.138 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Corballis M (2002) From hand to mouth: the origins of language. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  15. Culotta E (2010) Did modern humans get smart or just get together? Science 328:164. doi: 10.1126/science.328.5975.164 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Deacon T (1998) The symbolic species: the coevolution of language and the brainGoogle Scholar
  17. Donald M (2002) A mind so rare: the evolution of human consciousness. WW Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Frege G (1879) Begriiffsschrift. Verlag von Louis Nebert, HalleGoogle Scholar
  19. Gardenfors P (2003) How homo became sapiens: on the evolution of thinking. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Goodman N (1951) The structure of appearance. Harvard Unversity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Goodman N (1968) Languages of art. Bobbs-Merrill, IndianapolisGoogle Scholar
  22. Grice HP (1957) Meaning. Philos Rev 66:377–388. doi: 10.2307/2182440 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harnad S (1990) The symbol grounding problem. Physica D 42:335–346. doi:  10.1016/0167-2789(90)90087-6
  24. Harris Z (1956) Introduction to transformations and discourse analysis papers. University of Pennsylvania, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  25. Harris Z (1968) Mathematical structures of language. Interscience tracts in pure and applied mathematics, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Hauser M, Chomsky N, Fitch W (2002) The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298:1569–1580. doi: 10.1126/science.298.5598.1569 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Henshilwood C, d’Errico F, Yates R, Jacobs Z, Tribolo C, Duller GAT et al (2002) Emergence of modern human behavior: middle stone age engravings from South Africa. Science 295:1271280. doi: 10.1126/science.1067575 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hockett C (1963) The problem of universals of language. In: Greenberg J (ed) Universals of language. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. James W (1890) The principles of psychology. Henry Holt, BostonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Langer S (1942) Philosophy in a new key: a study in the symbolism of reason, rite, and art. New American Library, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. MacNeilage PF (2008) The origin of speech. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  32. Pribram C, Miller G, Galanter E (1960) Plans and the structure of behavior. Holt Rhinehart and Winston, NYGoogle Scholar
  33. Rizzolatti G, Arbib A (1998) Language within our grasp. Trends Neurosci 21:188–194. doi: 10.1016/S0166-2236(98)01260-0 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rizzolatti G, Craighero L (2004) The mirror-neuron system. Annu Rev Neurosci 27:169–192. doi: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144230 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rosenbaum DA (2009) Putting thoughts into action. In: Presentation, conference on language, thought, and motor control. Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NYGoogle Scholar
  36. Russell B (1903) The principles of mathematics. Cambridge University Press, CambidgeGoogle Scholar
  37. Russell B, Whitehead AN (1910, 1912, 1913) Principia Mathematica, 3 vols, Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  38. Skinner BF (1957) Verbal behavior. Copley Publishing Group, BostonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sterelny K (2012) The evolved apprentice (Jean Nicod lectures). MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  40. Tomasello M, Call J (1997) Primate cognition. Oxford University Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  41. Tomasello M (2005) Understanding and sharing intentions: the origins of cultural cognition. Behav Brain Sci 28:675–735. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X05000129 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Tomasello M (2008) Origins of human communication. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  43. Turing AM (1937) On numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem. P Lond Math Soc 42:230–265. doi: 10.1112/plms/s2-42.1.230 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wittgenstein L (1922) Tractatus logico-philosophicus. Harcourt, Brace and Co, Inc, NY; Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co, LTD, LondonGoogle Scholar
  45. Wittgenstein L (1953) Philosophical investigations. Blackwell, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyStony Brook UniversityStony BrookUSA

Personalised recommendations