Diversity in Visuals

At the VaIL conference a few weeks ago, one of the frequent conversations revolved around the issue of creating a universal graphic system.

The belief that visuals are universal is not new, and largely stems from the fact that most drawings look like what they represent ("iconicity"). This is also a motivating factor behind so-called "universal writing systems" like Blissymbols, Icon Language.

However, when looking at drawings as reflecting patterns in the mind, then there is actually quite a lot of diversity. Patterned styles like those of Japanese manga compared to stereotypical American superhero comics reflect culturally diverse conventions of different populations. Even more relative are the sand drawings of native Australian communities, and the constraints they place on recognizing other graphic depictions. Several other stories exist of people not fully understanding iconic drawings as well, such as the story Mort Walker tells about natives (I can't recall where) who thought that a person's legs were cut off, despite just being "out of frame."

Given this, perhaps it's time that we get over the idea of a universal communication system, and we come to accept that populations of humans will always develop idiosyncratic and in-group tendencies.

While globalization especially has raised a desire for inter-cultural communication, diversity in communication systems may have had evolutionary advantages. Having an identity tied to your language separate from others' means you can identify your group members, and even more helpful that you can keep secrets from other groups. If it wasn't beneficial, we would all be speaking the same languages (or so the argument could be made... diversity could just be a useful "spandrel" for the way other cognitive functions happened to turn out).

Perhaps instead of attempting to create universal systems, we should instead acknowledge the diversity that comes along with the way our brains are wired for social interactions. By accepting it, we can then strive to work with the constraints that our cognition and diversity brings or allows. That way, it will cease the fighting against the tide of inevitable diversity with rose colored glasses of universality, and instead invites appreciation for relative systems and cooperation to meet common goals of communication.

Clever Dumbo?

The Language Evolution blog posts this interesting youtube video showing an elephant painting a picture of an elephant:



I've vocalized often that as much as there is a debate about whether animals can or do have language (they don't), we know of no animals that draw. By drawing, I mean that they employ tool use to graphically achieve conceptual expression (that is usually iconic).

While it is pretty amazing to watch, I am highly dubious of it as a reflection of elephant cognition or that they really can "draw" to the definition above.

I imagine that the elephant has it remembered as a specific sequential routine of actions, rather than the execution of a set of patterns stored in the head for representing a concept of "elephant" (or "me"). That is, it doesn't have a mapping of action/graphics to concept. Remembering such a sequence of fine grained actions is still pretty impressive, but very different than being conceptually expressive.

This is likely a trick the elephants have been taught to show tourists like the ones who took the video. Note that in the beginning of the video there are multiple easels, perhaps for multiple elephants? Do they all draw the same patterns? Do they have any capability to recognize what they're drawing? Do they do this spontaneously without an audience?

Before conceding that elephants truly can draw, I'd like to know enough to rule this out as a "Clever Dumbo".

Thoughts on Language Evolution

In my TA class this semester we've just entered talking about Language Evolution, and combined with the recent discovery of this blog the topic has been on my mind a bit lately. Some general thoughts on reframing the overall discussion...

Some theories of language evolution postulate that ‘gestural language’ evolved prior to verbal language. While I am in support of the multimodal sentiment, parts of this rub me the wrong way.

First off, humans currently use both modalities concurrently in expression, which is offered as part of the evidence for its potential importance in evolutionary contexts. While the verbal form in most people uses more complex structure, both forms are in use at once in co-speech gesture. Why would it make sense for only one modality to develop dominantly then transfer into another? Should we perhaps be thinking in terms of concurrent development for concurrent usage?

Along these lines, humans also have the capacity to draw. While our primate cousins do have gestures and vocalizations for conceptual expression, none seem to manipulate the world for conceptual intent, which is at the heart of drawing. Yet, this is never mentioned alongside the discussions of the other modalities (though not surprisingly).

Also, I think it is largely a misnomer to say “gestural language” evolved first. As a cover phrase, I think it obfuscates the issues involved — namely, that there are various mental structures that contribute to a behavior of manual (verbal and visual) expressions.

This is even more problematic when various people use the word “language” in different ways — some refer to a communicative system, some to grammar, some to conceptual expression. Really, if the discussion is about the evolution of what we now know of as “language”, it may indeed be inappropriate to talk about its historical states as if they're the same thing as we have now.

It would be more useful to discuss the development and evolution of these structures (syntax, semantics, etc) than to talk about the capacity as if it were a whole thing. That is, we should be talking less about the evolution of “Language” and more about the development of the interacting cognitive structures that end up contributing to language as we know it in the modern context.