﹃語用論研究﹄ 第 20 号（2018 年）pp. 16-21© 2018 年 日本語用論学会[Special Contribution]

Spatial Cognition, Empathy and Language Evolution*

Stephen C. Levinson
MPI for Psycholinguistics and Redboud Univ., Nijmegen

The evolution of language and spatial cognition may have been deeply interconnected. The argument goes as follows: 1. Human native spatial abilities are poor, but we make up for it with linguistic and cultural prostheses; 2. The explanation for the loss of native spatial abilities may bethat language has cannibalized the hippocampus, the mammalian mental ‘GPS’; 3. Consequently,language may have borrowed conceptual primitives from spatial cognition (in line with ‘localism’), these being differentially combined in different languages; 4. The hippocampus may havebeen colonized because: (a) space was prime subject matter for communication, (b) gesture uses
space to represent space, and was likely precursor to language. In order to explain why the othergreat apes haven’t gone in the same direction, we need to invoke other factors, notably the ‘interaction engine’, the ensemble of interactional abilities that make cooperative communication possible and provide the matrix for the evolution and learning of language.

Keywords: spacial cognition, hippocampus, gesture language, interaction engine, empathetic capacity, cuteness selection
In this lecture I argued that language evolution may have been closely tied to spatial cognition. A first observation is that we are natively poor navigators, compared tomany animal species. Many animals have special senses dedicated to spatial navigation(Hughes 1999); birds for example have magnetoreception and polarized light detectors,
which allow them to literally see compass directions (Johnsen & Lohmann 2005).
Birds are remote from us, but bats are fellow mammals, and they (or at least some species) also have both magnetoreception (Holland et al. 2007) and polarized light detectors (Greif et al. 2014); moreover they have echolocation and keen olfaction for piloting
their flight. Humans by contrast are natively poor navigators, but they make up for thisby elaborate cultural prostheses — maps, compasses, GPS reception and so forth. Hunter gatherers may lack the technology, but they typically have enhanced spatial abilities
enabled by linguistic specialization (e.g. cardinal direction systems) and the cognitive
underpinnings that make this an automatic resource (Levinson 1997, 2003). Our own＊This paper is a synopsis of a talk given to PSJ (Pragmatics Society of Japan) in Kyoto, March
15th 2018.

16

03_Levinson.indd 16

2019/02/28 15:28

Spatial Cognition, Empathy and Language Evolution

17

work has shown how differently different languages conceive of space, and how thismakes spatial cognition a surprisingly culturally variable matter (Levinson & Wilkins
2006). There are peoples, for example, who don’t know their lefts and rights, but haveunerring senses of geographical location — as required by their language.
It’s worth asking what happened to our native spatial abilities, our instinctive directional senses, during human evolution. Spatial cognition has its seat in the hippocampus, as shown by the work of the 2014 Nobel laureates John O’Keefe and Edvard &May-Brit Moser. In humans, though, the hippocampus has been given additionaltasks — it plays a critical role in memory, but also as recent work has shown in language processing. In addition, it handles our social networks. Interestingly, our socialnetworks end up spatialized: we think about our social relations as close or distant, andvertically in terms of authority relations (Tavares et al. 2015). My suggestion is that
language is also spatialized by virtue of taking over part of the functions of the hippocampus. The suggestion is not new — O’Keefe (1996) for example suggested linguistic structure is vector-based as a result. This would be an example of what Dehaene &Cohen (2007) have called cultural recycling of neuronal resources, their example being
the way in which reading has invaded the occipitotemporal sulcus, with costs to ourface and object recognition.
Now, the idea called “localism” (Lyons 1977: 718-724), that linguistic concepts
have a spatial basis is actually ancient. It can be traced back to ancient Greek grammarians, is expressed e.g. in Harris’ (1765) Hermes, and had full blown development in
the work of nineteenth century philologists like Wüllner (1827) looking at the development of case systems (see Fortis 2011). It resurfaced in the twentieth century with theCase Grammarians (Gruber 1965, Anderson 1971), and then more recently in Cognitive
Semantics in the works of Talmy, Langacker and Jackendoff (e.g. Jackendoff 1983). Indeed, the case is strong that spatial concepts evident in language are more than metaphors: we see spatialization of many domains like time (‘through the night’), social relations (‘close cousins’), numbers (‘nearest prime’), state changes (‘rising prices’,‘changing from red to green’), qualities (‘top quality’), emotions (‘low spirits’) andmuch more. In addition the spatial concepts ‘to’, ‘from’, ‘in’, ‘at’, ‘place’, ‘path’, ‘go’,and so on — concepts encoded in the cells of the hippocampus — seem to provide theunderlying primitives for grammatical relations. Spatial cognition seems to play a foundational role in our semantics and cognition in general.
So language seems to have invaded the hippocampus, with the consequence thatlanguage has inherited the architecture of spatial cognition. But why? What attracted
language into this spatial area? Here in the evolution of language gesture may havebeen crucial. Gesture, and fully developed sign language, constitutes a spatially-expressed language largely about space — most gestures accompanying speech today havespatial meanings, and sign languages also are deeply rooted in spatial concepts. If, aswill be discussed below, early human language was basically gestural, then gesture may
have been the Trojan horse that allowed language to cannibalize part of the functions of

03_Levinson.indd 17

2019/02/28 15:28

18

語用論研究 第 20 号

the hippocampus. Although the hippocampus had not previously been thought to be akey part of the language circuitry (but see O’Keefe & Nadel 1978), increasing evidence
points to its important role in language processing (Alamri 2017). Just as the hippocampus enlarges in response to repeated and demanding spatial tasks (Maguire et al.
2000), so it grows during second-language learning (Martensson et al. 2012). The
structure is heavily involved in reference tracking (Duff & Brown-Schmidt 2012) andbinding problems (MacKay et al. 2007). And depth electrodes inserted in the humanhippocampus — just where rats show spatial functions — show that the hippocampus
tracks cloze probabilities, thus being part of the prediction apparatus that makes speechcomprehension possible (Piai et al. 2016).
The idea that gesture may have played this crucial role fits neatly with recent evidence about the evolution of language (Levinson & Holler 2014). The recovery of ancient DNA now makes clear that as far as genes are concerned, Neanderthals are essentially modern, and certainly there are no coding regions associated with language thatdemarcate us from Neanderthals (non-coding regions may differ a little, but the functions are unclear; see Dediu & Levinson 2018). In so far as it is possible to tell, thevocal tract and the breathing system are essentially modern (Dediu & Levinson 2013).
It is telling that the vertebral column show the same enlarged canal to the thorax whichis the index of modern human breath control. This is missing from the great apes andour ancestral form of Homo erectus, the African form called H. ergaster, implying he
was not an articulate animal. But since right across the great apes, flexible gesturalcommunication is evident, one must assume by the normal phylogenetic reasoning thatH. erectus had some kind of gestural language. Thus the timing for the change from a
predominantly gestural to vocal language can be narrowed to between 1.2mya and700kya (the date of the last common ancestor for us and Neanderthals).
So a possible story is that through a gesture language, perhaps elaborated by thetool-using H. erectus, spatial concepts became deeply embedded in our linguistic cognition. This at least provides some evolutionary account of where the architecture of linguistic concepts originated (unlike the idea in Berwick & Chomsky 2016 that language
is a chance mutation or improbable freak). But a possible problem for this view is that
there are many species with elaborate spatial senses and cognition that show no such
exploitation of spatial concepts in their communicational systems. Great apes gestures
do exploit spatial properties, often though in a simple way by a ritualization of part ofan interactional sequence — for example, an outstretched arm to an infant meaning ineffect “come here and I’ll put you on my back”. But the question remains: why haven’t
they also exploited the rich cognitive resources of the spatial domain?
Here, obviously, other factors are at play. Many have speculated that as scavengers
and hunters humans had to act cooperatively to hold off larger predators, and the capacity for coordinated joint action is one of the hallmarks of human adaptation (e.g. Tomasello 2014). That capacity in turn relies on deep foundations, what I have called the‘interaction engine’, an ensemble of cognitive and ethological properties. Critical is03_Levinson.indd 18

2019/02/28 15:28

Spatial Cognition, Empathy and Language Evolution

19

what has been called ‘theory of mind’, essentially cognitive and emotional empathy — intention-reading rests on being able to take the perspective of the other. I haveargued that this empathetic capacity is typical of primate (and perhaps more generallymammalian) mothers of helpless infants. Ape gestural communication seems to be especially prevalent in mother-infant interaction (see e.g. Fröhlich et al. 2016). The curiosity is how this maternal empathy (and the communication it affords) has become generalized across the genders and ages in human society, so that e.g. Obama can openly
weep when speaking about the victims of a school massacre whom he has never met.
We see here a possible connection to Lorenz’s (1971) ‘herzig’ or ‘cuteness’: ‘cute’ signals (large eyes, bulging head, reduced jaw, wobbly stance, juvenile vocalizations) release maternal instincts on Lorenz’s account. But these features are just the featuresthat have often been described in terms of human neoteny, the evolutionary trend in ourline towards gracile and juvenile form (see Gould 1977). The idea then suggests itself:
perhaps human evolution was subject to a runaway process of ‘cuteness selection’ (similar to RA Fisher’s account of extreme sexual selection): an infant that remains cute foras long as possible will maximize maternal care, so being selected for, while a parent
who falls for cuteness will maximize parental contributions and thus infant fitness, socontributing to a virtuous circle of maternalization and infantilization.
Other aspects of the ‘interactional engine’ are more behavioural. Communicational
turn-taking for example can be traced right across the primate order (Levinson 2016),
but it is particularly embedded in human communication where the speed of transitions(c. 200 ms) puts enormous burdens on cognitive processing: in effect, we are squeezing
enormously complex clauses generated on the fly into small turns (average under 2secs) with little preparation time (Levinson & Torreira 2015). This is suggestive thatthe 200 ms timing (which is also found in ape gestural communication, Fröhlich et al.
2016) antecedes complex language, which has evolved within an antecedent temporalconstraint. Ontogeny here perhaps recapitulates phylogeny, with complex language developing in children slowly within tight timing (Hilbrink et al. 2015), and with children
struggling to match adult response times until age 10 or so (Stivers et al. 2018). In anycase, despite the fact that the interaction engine has disparate components, it is interesting to note that as far as clinical populations go they act together as ensembles (BaronCohen et al. 1985). So there are double dissociations between linguistic and interactional competence, with e.g. high functioning autists with good language competence
and restricted interactional competence (Bishop & Norbury 2002), contrasting withDown syndrome subjects with restricted language competence but good interactional
skills (Jenkins & Ramruttan 1998).
It is the possession of the interaction engine that has made it possible for humans
to develop advanced communication, because it provides a niche in which languages
can be learnt and culture accumulated. But the source of the cognitive architecture for
language may be spatial, and gesture may be answerable for its adoption.

03_Levinson.indd 19

2019/02/28 15:28

20

語用論研究 第 20 号

References
Alamri, S. 2017. The Contribution of the Hippocampus to Language Processing. PhD thesis,Universitat de Barcelona.
Anderson, J. M. 1971. The Grammar of Case: Towards a Localistic Theory. London: Cambridge
University Press.
Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. & Frith, U. 1985. “Does the Autistic Child Have a Theory of Mind?”Cognition 21(1), 37–46.
Berwick, R. & Chomsky, N. 2016. Why Only Us? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bishop, D. V. M. & Norbury, C. F. 2002. “Exploring the Borderlands of Autistic Disorder andSpecific Language Impairment: A study Using Standardised Diagnostic Instruments.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 43(7), 917-929.
Dediu, D. & Levinson, S. C. 2013. “On the Antiquity of Language: The Reinterpretation of Neandertal Linguistic Capacities and Its Consequences.” Frontiers in Language Sciences 4,397.
Dediu, D. & Levinson, S. C. 2018. “Neanderthal Language Revisited: Not Only Us.” Current
Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 21, 49-55.
Dehaene, S. & Cohen, L. 2007. “Cultural Recycling of Cortical Maps.” Neuron 56(2), 384-398.
Duff, M. C. & Brown-Schmidt, S. 2012. “The Hippocampus and the Flexible Use and Processingof Language.” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 6, 69, 1-11.
Fortis, J-M. 2011. “On Localism in the History of Linguistics.” Paper presented at the AFLiCo
2011, Workshop on Localism. htl.linguist.univ-paris-diderot.fr/_media/fortis/fortis_on_localism.pdf.
Fröhlich, M., Kuchenbuch, P., Müller, G., Fruth, B., Furuichi, T., Wittig, R. & Pika, S. 2016.
“Unpeeling the Layers of Language: Bonobos and Chimpanzees Engage in Cooperative
Turn-taking Sequences.” Scientific Reports 6, 25887.
Gould, S. J. 1977. Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Greif, S., Borissov, I., Yovel, Y. & Holland, R. A. 2014. “A Functional Role of the Sky’S Polarization Pattern for Orientation in the Greater Mouse-eared Bat.” Nature Communications 5,4488, 1-4.
Gruber, J. S. 1965. Studies in Lexical Semantics. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Harris, J. 1765. Hermes or a Philosophical Inquiry Concerning Universal Grammar. London:
John Nourse & Paul Vaillant.
Hilbrink, E., Gattis, M., & Levinson, S. C. 2015. “Early Developmental Changes in the Timingof Turn-taking: A Longitudinal Study of Mother-infant Interaction.” Frontiers in Psychology
6, 1492.
Holland, R. A., Thorup, K., Vonhof, M. J. & Wikelski, M. 2007. “Navigation — Bat Orientation
Using Earth’s Magnetic Field.” Nature 444(7120), 702.
Hughes. H. C. 1999. Sensory Exotica. A World beyond Human Experience. Cambridge, MA: MITPress.
Jackendoff, R. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (NOT IN TEXT)
Jenkins, C. & Ramruttun, B. 1998. “Prelinguistic Communication and Down Syndrome.” Down
Syndrome Research and Practice 5(2), 53-62.
Johnsen S. & Lohmann K. J. 2005. “The Physics and Neurobiology of Magnetoreception.” National Review of Neuroscience 6(9), 703-12.

03_Levinson.indd 20

2019/02/28 15:28

Spatial Cognition, Empathy and Language Evolution

21

Levinson, S. C. 1997. “Language and Cognition: The Cognitive Consequences of Spatial Description in Guugu Yimithirr.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 7(1), 1-35.
Levinson, S. C. 2003. Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S. C. 2016. “Turn-taking in Human Communication, Origins, and Implications forLanguage Processing.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 20(1), 6-14.
Levinson, S. C. & Torreira, F. 2015. “Timing in Turn-taking and Its Implications for Processing
Models of Language.” Frontiers in Psychology 6, 731.
Levinson, S. C. & Holler, J. 2014. “The Origin of Human Multi-modal Communication.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences369(1651): 2013030.
Levinson, S. C. & Wilkins, D. P. (Eds.). 2006. Grammars of Space: Explorations in CognitiveDiversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lorenz, K. 1971. Studies in Animal and Human Behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MacKay, D. G., James, L. E., Taylor, J. K. & Marian, D. E. 2007. “Amnesic H.M. Exhibits Parallel Deficits and Sparing in Language and Memory: Systems versus Binding Theory Accounts.” Language and Cognitive Processes 22(3), 377-452.
Maguire, E., Gadian, D., Johnsrude, I., Good, C., Ashburner, J., Frackowiak, R. & Frith, C. 2000.
“Navigation-related Structural Change in the Hippocampi of Taxi Drivers.” Proceedings ofthe Natlonal Academic Sciences USA 97(8), 4398–4403.
Mårtensson J., Eriksson J., Bodammer, N. C., Lindgren, M., Johansson, M., Nyberg, L., & Lövdén, M. 2012. “Growth of Language-related Brain Areas after Foreign Language Learning.”
Neuroimage 63(1), 240-244.
O’Keefe, J. 1996. “The Spatial Preposition in English, Vector Grammar, and the Cognitive Map
Theory.” In P. Bloom, M. Peterson, L. Nadel & M. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (pp.
277-316). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
O’Keefe, J. & Nadel, L. 1978. The Hippocampus as a Cognitive Map. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Piai, V., Anderson, K., Lin, J., Dewar, C., Parvizi, J., Dronkers, N. & Knight, R. 2016. “DirectBrain Recordings Reveal Hippocampal Rhythm Underpinnings of Language Processing.”
PNAS 113 (40), 11366-11371.
Stivers, T., Sidnell, J. & Bergen, C. 2018. “Children’s Responses to Questions in Peer Interaction: A Window into the Ontogenesis of Interactional Competence.” Journal of Pragmatics
124, 14-30.
Tavares, R. M., Mendelsohn A., Grossman, Y., Williams, C. H., Shapiro, M., Trope, Y. & Schiller,D. 2015. “A Map for Social Navigation in the Human Brain.” Neuron 87(1), 231-243.
Tomasello, M. 2014. A Natural History of Human Thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.
Wüllner, F. 1827. Die Bedeutung der sprachlichen Casus und Modi. Münster: Theissigsche Buchhandlung.

03_Levinson.indd 21

2019/02/28 15:28