Evolinguistics Workshop 2019
Hierarchy, intention sharing, and language evolution:
Beyond interdisciplinary conceptual barriers

May 25-26, 2019
21KOMCEE East K211 & 212
University of Tokyo, Komaba


Funded by MEXT Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Researchon Innovative Areas #4903:
Evolinguistics: Integrative Studies of Language Evolution for
Co-Creative Communicationin collaboration with
Language and Music in Cognition, U of Cologne.
http://evolinguistics.net/en/
http://musikwissenschaft.phil-fak.uni-koeln.de/34666.html?&L=1

Program
May 25 (Sat)
Room K211
13:00
Opening
13:15

Cedric Boeckx (ICREA/U Barcelona)
Language: Confluent evolutionary trajectories

14:15

Break

Room K211
14:25
Ryosuke Tachibana (U Tokyo) & Kazuo Okanoya (U Tokyo)
Exploring syntactical structure of mesoscopic neural activity in songbird brain
14:45

Katsuhiro Sano (Tohoku U)
Emergence of the complex multi-faceted sequences in human tools

15:05

Yuko Yoshimura (Kanazawa U) & Mitsuru Kikuchi (Kanazawa U)
Neural basis of ‘intention sharing’ in children and adults with autism spectrum disorder

15:45

Junya Morita (Shizuoka U)
Modeling shared communication systems formed with autistic cognition

Room K212
14:25
Daiki Matsumoto (Kyoto U)
Distinctness, recursiveness and hierarchy by Select and Merge
14:45

Masanobu Sorida (independent)
Perceiving syntactic objects

15:05

Masakazu Kuno (Waseda U)
Mathematical exploration of minimalist syntax: A preliminary study

15:45

Koji Hoshi (Keio U)
An exploration into the relation between Merge and categorization in evolinguistics

16:25

Break

Room K211
16:40
Erin Hecht (Harvard U)
Hands, tools, and words: Adaptation and exaptation in human brain evolution
18:00

Reception (at Italian Tomato)

May 26 (Sun)
Room K211
9:30
Julia Uddén (Stockholm U)
Two major complexities to evolve: Sentence structure building in the dorsal pathway
and the development of pragmatics around puberty
10:30

Break

Room K211
10:40
Michiru Makuuchi (National Rehabilitation Center for Persons with Disabilities)
Hierarchical structure building in symbol sequence, i.e., language, mathematics
and drawing
11:00

Rie Asano (U Cologne)
Syntax in language and music from a perspective of comparative biomusicology

11:40

Kazumi Taniguchi (Kyoto U)
Sharing patterns, sharing intention: A view from dialogic syntax

Room K212
10:40
Haruka Fujita (Kyoto U)
The co-evolution of internalization and externalization in human lexicon
11:00

Tzu-Yin Chen (U Tokyo & RIKEN), Yuki Hirose (U Tokyo) & Takane Ito (U Tokyo)
The facilitative effect of prosodic information in online lexical processing: Evidence from
Mandarin Chinese Tone 3 sandhi

11:20

Sandiway Fong (U Arizona), Robert Berwick (MIT) & Jason Ginsburg (Osaka
Kyoiku U)
The combinatorics of Merge and workspace tight-sizing

11:40

Genta Toya (JAIST), Rie Asano (U Cologne) & Takashi Hashimoto (JAIST)The reason of building hierarchical structure: From the view of recursive combination
as an internal operation

12:00

Lunch break

Room K211
13:30
John Du Bois (UC Santa Barbara)
Coupling for life: Co-evolution of grammar and prosody in dialogic interaction
14:30

Sabrina Engesser (U Zurich)
Vocal combinations in birds: Implications for language evolution

15:30

Break

15:45

Toshitaka Suzuki (Kyoto U)
Referentiality and compositionality in bird calls

16:25

Kazuo Okanoya (U Tokyo)"Syntax" in animal vocalizations: Limitations and perspectives

17:05

Discussion

17:30

Closing

May 25 Sat
Room K211

Room K212

13:00 13:15

Opening

13:15 14:15

C. Boeckx

14:15 14:25

Break

14:25 14:45

R.Tachibana & K.Okanoya

14:25 14:45

D. Matsumoto

14:45 15:05

K. Sano14:45 15:05

M. Sorida

15:05 15:45

Y. Yoshimura & M. Kikuchi

15:05 15:45

M. Kuno15:45 16:25

J. Morita

15:45 16:25

K. Hoshi

16:25 16:40

Break

16:40 17:40

E. Hecht

18:00 20:00

Reception (Italian Tomato)

May 26 Sun
Room K211

Room K212

9:30 10:30

J. Uddén

10:30 10:40

Break

10:40 11:00

M. Makuuchi

10:40 11:00

H. Fujita

11:00 11:40

R. Asano

11:00 11:20

T-Y.Chen, Y. Hirose & T. Ito

11:40 12:00

K. Taniguchi

11:20 11:40

S. Fong, R. Berwick & J. Ginsburg

11:40 12:00

G. Toya, R. Asano & T. Hashimoto

12:00 13:30

Lunch break

13:30 14:30

J. Du Bois

14:30 15:30

S. Engesser

15:30 15:45

Break

15:45 16:25

T. Suzuki

16:25 17:05

K. Okanoya

17:05 17:30

Discussion

17:30

Closing

Online Presentations
1 Dieter Hillert (UC San Diego & San Diego State U)
We were not alone: The gradual evolution of the language capacity
2 Sebastian Klaßmann (U Cologne)
Logical Cells: Combinatory Categorial Grammar as a unified framework for describing melodic
improvisation and harmonic analysis

Saturday, May 25th, 2019

Language: Confluent Evolutionary Trajectories
Cedric Boeckx*1,2,3*

Corresponding Author: cedric.boeckx@ub.edu
ICREA (Catalan Institute for Advanced Studies and Research)
2
Section of General Linguistics, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
3
Universitat de Barcelona Institute for Complex Systems (UBICS)
1

Everyone these days takes the faculty of language to consist of several parts, and assumes thatthese parts must have come together at some point in the course of evolution. Disagreements
arise regarding the specific identity of these parts and the timing of their emergence. Here,based on work done in my group, I will take a particular stance on these issues, but I will
focus more on another, related, question: did these component parts appear in a specific order,
and did they begin to cluster in a particular order—can this be rationalized and tested?

Exploring syntactical structure of mesoscopic neural activity in songbird brain
Ryosuke O. Tachibana1* and Kazuo Okanoya1*

1

Corresponding Author: rtachi@gmail.com
Department of Life Sciences, Graduate School of Arts & Sciences,
The University of Tokyo, Japan

Birdsong is a good model to study neural mechanisms for skilled motor sequences. Bengalese
finches' songs consist of a sequence of various sound elements (syllables). Their songs havebeen reported to show stochastic syllable transitions at branching points in the sequence(Fig. 1A), as results of sequence analyses based on acoustical similarity among syllables.
How does this syllable transition rule, or song syntax, reflect the sequential structure ofinternal premotor activities? The song motor pathway in the bird brain includes two premotor
nuclei: HVC (high vocal center) and RA (robust nucleus of arcopallium). HVC neurons
projecting to RA (HVCRA) are known to exhibit burst firings sparsely at specific timings insong sequence, as a driving source of syllable productions. Thus, measuring activities of
HVCRA neurons during singing will reveal neuronal mechanisms for producing the motor
sequence with such complex transition syntax. In the present study, we measured neuronal
activities from multiple HVCRA neurons of freely-moving birds by the calcium imaging
technique. Fluorescent calcium indicators (GCaMP) were expressed specifically in HVCRA
neurons using the adeno-associated viral vectors (Fig. 1B,C). After several weeks of waiting
for the expression, we started to image spontaneous song productions by a light-weightminiaturized fluorescent microscope which was mounted onto bird's head. Preliminary results
showed that each HVCRA neuron fired at different timings in the song with reflecting thesequential transition pattern. Further analyses on consistency in transition patterns between
the neuronal burst sequences and produced songs will be discussed.

Figure 1. In vivo Ca2+ imaging of premotor neuronal activities in the Bengalese finch’s brain. A.
Schematic drawing of expected syntactic structure of Bengalese finches’ songs. B. Viral injection
for expressing calcium indicator (GCaMP) in the premotor nucleus HVC. C. Example of detected
fluorescent responses from premotor neurons.

Emergence of the complex multi-faceted sequences in human tools
Katsuhiro Sano*1*

1

Corresponding Author: sano.k@tohoku.ac.jp
Center for Northeast Asian Studies, Tohoku University, Sendai, JapanThe oldest stone tools appeared at ~2.6 Ma in East Africa and then the first genus Homo,
Homo habilis, emerged at ~2.4 Ma. Homo habilis then evolved into Homo erectus, whichcoincides with the emergence of the first designed stone tools, such as handaxes, at around1.75 Ma (Beyene et al., 2015). Although advanced handaxes show three-dimensional
symmetricity and refined workmanship, they were used without any handles or shafts. The
procedures of the production and use of these tools are quite simple. They were hold by ahand and used for cutting or chopping.
On the other hand, Neanderthals in Europe and an almost contemporaneous Homo groupin East Africa, as late Homo heidelbergensis or early Homo sapiens, started to haft a stone
tool onto a wooden shaft between 300 ka and 200 ka (Mazza et al., 2006; Brooks et al., 2018).
They used birch bark tar, bitumen, or resin as adhesives to connect two different materials.
So, the procedures of the production and use of the composite tools are more complex thanthose of choppers or handaxes. However, their composite tools do not share the samehierarchy with the syntax of language.
Nevertheless, the complex projectile technology using a spearthrower or a bow involves
an intricate procedure and requires multistage planning (Lombard and Haidle, 2012).
Therefore, the emergence of the projectile technology may reflect the emergence of thecognitive ability for controlling merge in language. Hence, we are trying to detect the origin
and dispersal process of the complex projectile technology. The paper presents current resultsof our studies.

References
Beyene, Y., Sano, K., Asfaw, B., Suwa, G., 2015. Technological and Cognitive Advances
Inferred from the Konso Acheulean Assemblages. In: Beyene, Y., Asfaw, B., Sano, K.,
Suwa, G. (Eds.), Konso-Gardula Research Project Volume 2. Archaeological Collection:
Background and the Early Acheulean Assemblages. The University Museum, The
University of Tokyo, Bulletin No. 48, pp. 65–81.
Brooks, A.S., Yellen, J.E., Potts, R., Behrensmeyer, A.K., Deino, A.L., Leslie, D.E.,
Ambrose, S.H., Ferguson, J.R., d’Errico, F., Zipkin, A.M., Whittaker, S., Post, J., Veatch,

E.G., Foecke, K., Clark, J.B., 2018. Long-distance stone transport and pigment use in theearliest Middle Stone Age. Science. 360, 90–94.
Lombard, M., Haidle, M.N., 2012. Thinking a bow-and-arrow set: cognitive implications ofMiddle Stone Age bow and stone-tipped arrow technology. Cambridge Archaeological
Journal. 22, 237–264.
Mazza, P.P.A., Martini, F., Sala, B., Magi, M., Colombini, M.P., Giachi, G., Landucci, F.,
Lemorini, C., Modugno, F., Ribechini, E., 2006. A new Palaeolithic discovery: tar-haftedstone tools in a European Mid-Pleistocene bone-bearing bed. Journal of Archaeological
Science. 33, 1310–1318.

Figure 1. Spearthrower-dart and bow-and-arrow technologies. Both hunting weapons
comprise several parts and require multistage planning.

Neural basis of ‘intention sharing’ in children and adults with autism spectrum disorder
Yuko Yoshimura*1,2 , Mitsuru Kikuchi2,3*Corresponding Author: yukuchen@staff.kanazawa-u.ac.jp!Institute of Human and Social Sciences, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Japan
2
Research center for child mental development, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Japan3!Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Science, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Japan1

In the process of human ontogeny, brain changes in early childhood are related not only totheir own survival, but also to socializing with the society and prospering of species. In recent
years, advances in brain imaging technology have led to an understanding of the maturationof human brain structure and white matter fibers from the fetal stage. However, functional
activities of the brain related to language development and sociality in early childhood arestill unclear because of the difficulty of physiological examination at the time of observation.
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD), which has been reported to have a prevalence rate of 1% ormore in recent years, is a neurodevelopmental disorder mainly related to sociality andcommunication. Language developmental delay, pragmatic language impairment are observedin many individuals with ASD. We hypothesize that various perceptual processing features,such as speech processing in the brain cortex in early childhood, are associated withdifficulties in acquiring typical language development and communication skills. In otherwords, it is thought that the atypical processing at the perceptual level, which is considered to
be low-order processing in the brain, creates diverse personalities of children defined as
autism spectrum and typical development, and influences the interaction with society.
Our purpose is to elucidate the relationship between brain activity and development evokedby auditory stimuli (especially ‘intention sharing’ voice) using child- customized
magnetoencephalography (MEG) system. We introduce the differences in brain response tointention sharing voice between children with ASD and typical developing children(Yoshimura et al., 2013; Yoshimura et al., 2016; Yoshimura et al., 2017). Furthermore, wereport the results of examining the brain regions involved in the processing of intention
sharing by examining the relationship with serotonin transporter using Positron Emission
Tomography (PET) in adults with ASD (Figure 1).
Yoshimura Y, Kikuchi M, et al., (2013). Atypical brain lateralisation in the auditory cortex
and language performance in 3- to 7-year-old children with high-functioning autism spectrum
disorder: a child-customised magnetoencephalography (MEG) study. Molecular autism. 4(1)38. doi: 10.1186/2040-2392-4-38

Yoshimura Y, Kikuchi M, et al., (2016). Atypical development of the central auditory system
in young children with Autism spectrum disorder. Autism Research.!9(11):1216-1226.
Yoshimura Y, Kikuchi M, et al., (2017). Altered human voice processing in the frontal cortex
and a developmental language delay in 3- to 5-year-old children with autism spectrum
disorder. Scientific reports. 7(1) 17116. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-17058-x

Figure 1. Correlation between serotonin transporter and brain response evoked by ‘intention sharing’voice in the right hemisphere.

Modeling Shared Communication Systems formed with Autistic Cognition
Junya Morita *1*

1

Junya Morita: j-morita@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp
Faculty of Informatics, Shizuoka University, Hamamatsu, Japan

What is the biological, cognitive and social mechanisms leading to shared communication
systems in the society? In this research, we focus on autistic cognition as a personal
characteristic related to the question above. This characteristic may lead to difficulties insocial life, but it is also suggested that it has been involved in important innovation leading to
the present age. Therefore, rather than considering the autism spectrum as just an obstacle, we
see it as an individual characteristic that plays a role in forming a new communication system.
In this research, we use a communication game that generates simple artificial languages as
the experimental environment (Konno, et al., 2013), and associate autism spectrum index(AQ: Autism Spectrum Quotient) as individual characteristics with data obtained from games.
As a result of analyzing the obtained data, we found marginally positive correlations between
the AQ and the success of this communication game. The detailed analysis also revealed thesignificant correlation between the patterned thinking style measured with AQ and the successof communication in the early and final stage of the game. From these result, we hypothesizethat the AQ plays the role of scaffolding to develop a system used to share intentions, and also
it contributes to maintain the constructed communication systems in the society. In the future
work, we will conduct a computational modeling extending our previous work (Morita, et al.,2017) to represent and test the hypothesis above.
Konno, T., Morita, J., and Hashimoto, T. (2013). Symbol communication systems integrate
implicit information in coordination tasks. Advances in cognitive neurodynamics (iii), 453459.
Morita, J.,Konno, T., Okuda, J., Samejima, K., Li, G., Fujiwara, M., and Hashimoto, T.
(2017). Implicit memory processing in the formation of a shared communication system.
In Proceedings of 15th International Conference on Cognitive Modeling, pp.19—24.

Distinctness, Recursiveness and Hierarchy by Select and Merge
Daiki MATSUMOTO1*matsumoto.daiki.24x@st.kyoto-u.ac.jp
1Graduate School of Human and Environmental Studies, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan

In the field of Generative Grammar, it is widely accepted that the only syntactic computation
Merge, which takes two distinct items as its inputs and creates a set out of them, always yields
a hierarchically-structured expression (Chomsky 1995). As Boeckx (2014) insists, Merge inthis sense has no way of referring to any kind of semantic/phonological properties of its
inputs. Simply put, Merge is blind. It just combines two items and yields a hierarchy. One
critical fact here is that generative grammarians have never asked one crucial question: how
can the distinctness of the inputs to Merge be secured? One of the main reasons for thisignorance is, I think, that despite the caveat aptly made by Boeckx, they still subconsciously
rely on the inner properties of its inputs. Put differently, the distinctness in question is justpresupposed because, for example, the words kick and John are both phonologically andsemantically different. It is true that these two are distinct to each other from our eyes.
However, as Boeckx argues, Merge itself has no way of knowing this. Based on theseobservations, I argue that other than Merge, another operation which I call Select is necessary.
It maps the copy of a concept stored in the Lexicon LEX onto the workspace on which Merge
operates (Chomsky et al. 2019), securing one necessary condition for hierarchy: distinctness. I
further insist that Select, together with Boeckx’s definition of phases, forces us to look at therole of the interface between syntax and LEX as a memory savor for syntax, securing anothercondition for hierarchy: recursiveness. Finally, I propose a(n alternative) language system inwhich I assume that syntax is inside the conceptual-intentional (CI) system, and the interface
between CI and sensorimotor (SM) systems is what we call LEX.

Boeckx, C. (2014). Elementary syntactic structures: Prospects of a feature-free syntax.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA, US: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N., Gallego, Á. J., and Ott, D. (2019). Generative grammar and the faculty oflanguage: Insights, questions and challenges. Unpublished manuscript. https://ling.auf.net/
lingbuzz/003507

Perceiving Syntactic Objects
Masanobu Sorida*1*

Corresponding Author: masanobusorida@gmail.com
1
Independent Scholar, Japan

In this talk, I consider the origin of labeling, an essential component of the language faculty,
and argue that it originates from a domain-general cognitive capacity that serves todistinguish figure and ground. A common feature of figure-ground segmentation (FGS) andlabeling can be stated as follows: Given a structured object, the most prominent element
within it, which can be found with least efforts (minimal search), is chosen and is regarded as
the central element for interpretation (figure for perception, label for language). Concrete data
make the parallelism clear. FGS and labeling sometimes show ambiguity. The image (1) is
Rubin’s vase, which is ambiguous between a vase and two faces, a celebrated illustration of
figure-ground reversal. A parallel example can be found in language. Embedded what-clauses
can be interpreted in two ways: an indirect question (2a) or a free relative (2b). This is
explained in terms of labeling. The structure of the what-clause is in (3), where minimal
search is ambiguous between D (for the free relative) and C (for the indirect question).
Thanks to the selectional properties of the main verbs, however, the ambiguity does not arise
here. A real ambiguity is observed in (4). The what-clause can be interpreted either way. Thus
“Labeling reversal” takes place just as in Rubin’s vase. A further parallelism can be shown byobserving that FGS and labeling obey the same constraint. In (5), two images of Rubin’s vaseare juxtaposed, and you are forced to interpret them in parallel: If you see, say, a vase on theleft, you must see another vase on the right. Labeling observes the same constraint. When two
what-clauses are apposed, they are forced to be interpreted in parallel: When the first conjunctis interpreted, say, as an indirect question, the second one should also be.
Boeckx, Cedric. (2009). Language in Cognition: uncovering mental structures and the rules
behind them. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden.
Cecchetto, Carlo and Caterina, Donati. (2015). (Re) labeling. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky, Noam. (2013). Problems of Projection. Lingua 130, 33-49.
Donati, Caterina. (2006). On wh-head movement. In Wh-movement: Moving on, ed. by Lisa
Lai-Shen Cheng and Norbert Corver, 21-46. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hoffman, Donald. (1998). Visual intelligence. New York. Norton.

(1)

(2)
a. John wonder [what Sue ate for lunch].
b. John devoured [what Sue had given him].
(3)
D
(4)

C

Jim saw [what Sue was holding in her hand].

(5)

(6)

Jim saw [what Sue was holding in her hand] and [what Bill was clutching in his teeth].

Mathematical Exploration of Minimalist Syntax: A Preliminary Study
Masakazu Kuno*1*

1

Corresponding Author: kuno@waseda.jp
Department of Education, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan

This paper begins with the following two questions about mapping between syntax andmathematics.
(1) What is the set G such that G is manipulated by syntactic operations?
(2) What syntactic operations apply to G?
Our proposal is as follows:(3) G is the set of lexical items and phrases, call them Syntactic Objects SOs, (phrases result
from Multiplication Merge defined in (4)).
(4) G is manipulated by Multiplication Merge (MM).
MM (a,b) = a*b, for arbitrary elements a, b ∈ G.
MM corresponds to multiplication operation but unlike multiplication of numbers, MM ofSOs does not satisfy the associative law, i.e., not always (a*b)*c = a*(b*c). This is clear asphrases like black taxi driver exhibit semantic ambiguity, depending on which
SO undergoes MM with which one, viz., (black*(taxi*driver)) or ((black*taxi)*driver).
MM is not the sole type of Merge. Language manifests a structure that indicates the
distributive property (i.e., a*(b+c) = a*b+a*c), one straightforward case being ATB
movement, as in (5).
(5) John bought fish and cooked it (= John bought fish and John cooked it.)Given this property, mathematical consideration suggests (6).
(6) Language has a type of Merge corresponding to addition, call it Addition Merge (AM).
AM (a,b) = a+b, for arbitrary elements a, b ∈ G.
Thus, ATB example in (5) can be represented as the formula in (6), which undergoes formula
deformation by factorization.

(6) (John*bought*fish) + (John*cooked*it)= John*{(1*bought*fish) + (1*cooked*it)}and is taken as the application of AM.
Factorization by John

We extend this analysis to DP movement to Spec-TP and Wh-movement to Spec-CP.
They can be analysed as factorization by DP/Wh-phrase or one by T/C; the former
corresponds to overt movement and the latter covert movement (Chomsky 1995). We willshow that most, if not all, of the syntactic principles naturally follow.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.

An Exploration into the Relation between Merge and Categorization in Evolinguistics
Koji Hoshi*1*

1khoshi@a7.keio.jp
Faculty of Economics, Keio University, Yokohama, Japan

Providing an evolutionarily adequate account of how the particular form of hierarchicalstructuring in human language (characterized by Merge) evolved has been one of the mostsignificant and fundamental issues in evolinguistics in gaining a better understanding oforigins and evolution of our species (Fujita, 2009 inter alia). With this backdrop in mind,
extending and refining the hypothesis of categorization origin of Merge in Hoshi (2018),
which is an elaboration of Lenneberg’s (1967) idea on the evolution of human language inmodern theoretical linguistic terms, I will claim that Merge as the hierarchical structurebuilding operation was derived from the categorization operation, which is independently andwidely observed in not only humans but non-human animals as well (Murphy, 2010 inter alia).
More specifically, I will propose that Merge emerged in Homo sapiens as part of theevolutionary recombination of the “old traits” in the categorization operation, while
preserving the latter process per se, viz., an array of ”concepts” and a set-formation operation,affecting the nature of categorization in our species in a fundamental fashion. Given thatcategorization is at work both in the sensori-motor (SM) system (perceptual categorization
and action categorization (Jackendoff, 2007 inter alia)) and in the conceptualintentional/thought system (conceptual categorization (Lenneberg, 1967 inter alia)), I will also
consider implications of my hypothesis in connection with other approaches to theevolutionary origin of Merge. In particular, I will point out a possibility that Merge was ofboth SM and C-I origins simultaneously at the stage of protolanguage in our human ancestors,
which is in line with the motor control origin of Merge extensively discussed in the literature(Fujita, 2009 et seq. and references cited therein).
Fujita, K. (2009). A prospect for evolutionary adequacy: Merge and the evolution anddevelopment of human language. Biolinguistics, 3, 128-153.
Hoshi, K. (2018). Merge and labeling as descent with modification of categorization: A neoLennebergian approach. Biolinguistics, 12, 39-54.
Jackendoff, R. (2007). Language, Consciousness, Culture: Essays on Mental Structure.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). Biological Foundations of Language. New York: John Wiley &Sons.

Murphy, G. L. (2010). What are categories and concepts? In D. Mareschal, P. C. Quinn & S.
E.G. Lea (eds.), The Making of Human Concepts, 11-28. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Hands, Tools, and Words: Adaptation and Exaptation in Human Brain Evolution
Erin Hecht *1*

1

Corresponding Author: erin_hecht@fas.harvard.edu
Department of Human Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, USA

Chimpanzee stone tool use has remained essentially unchanged for at least 4300 years. In thattime, humans have gone from the Bronze Age to Pluto. How have we so drastically outpaced
our closest living relatives? What is it about the human brain that makes us faster and more
prolific social learners, better at innovating upon socially learned actions, and capable ofproducing rapidly-evolving cumulative culture with products like complex technology andlanguage? This talk will discuss adaptations to the neural circuitry for observing andreproducing others’ hand-object actions, and how the elaboration of this basic functionality
may have supported the emergence of more complex capacities. Comparative neuroimaging
studies have uncovered some properties of frontoparietal circuits that are likely common to all
primates, some shared by humans and chimpanzees, and some unique to our species.
Experimental archaeology research provides a window on human evolution after we diverged
from our primate relatives, including how individual brains are forced to change in order toacquire the skills that were important selective pressures in our evolutionary history, like
toolmaking and symbolic communication. Together, these lines of research suggest an
evolutionary trend toward elaboration in dorsal-stream, “vision-for-action” circuitry. Thesechanges seem tuned to support increased integration of hierarchical conceptualizations ofaction goals with concrete kinematic, proprioceptive, and spatio-temporal details – a function
which would be increasingly important during the evolution of intentional, instrumental
behaviors where complex sequences of fine motor actions are acquired via socialtransmission, as occurs in gesture, tool use, and language.

Sunday, May 26th, 2019

Two major complexities in language evolution: sentence structure building in the dorsal
pathway and the development of pragmatics around puberty
Julia Udden*1*

1

Corresponding Author: julia.udden@psychology.su.se
Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Human neurobiology distinguishes itself in specific ways from the non-human primate
neurobiology and the discrepancy is in no small part localized to language related networks,
including the arcuate fasciculus (left dorsal language pathway). I will present experiments
taking a closer look on the function of this pathway. It is generally assumed that structurebuilding processes during spoken and written comprehension are subserved by modalityindependent lexical, morphological, grammatical, and conceptual processes. I will mainlypresent a large-scale neuroimaging study (fMRI, N=204) on whether the unification ofsentence structure is supramodal in this sense, testing if observations replicate across written
and spoken sentence materials. The activity in the unification network should increase when it
is presented with a challenging sentence structure, irrespective of the input modality. In orderto make computationally specific suggestion of challenges during sentence comprehension,
we build on well-established findings, inspired by experiments using the artificial grammar
learning paradigm. Artificial language processing, just like natural language processing, may
be hypothesized to rely on common neural mechanisms for structured sequence processing,for instance localized to the left dorsal language pathway. I build on the well-establishedfinding that multiple non-local dependencies, overlapping in time, are challenging. In otherwords, this challenge during sentence comprehension relate to the need for keeping somewords (more specifically so called “non-attached constituents”) online when building asentence. More generally put, these challenges mark the presence of important aspects ofhierarchical processing. We show that the added load of a challenging sentence structure leads
to an increased supramodal neural response in the left dorsal language pathway.
Are there other distinguishable brain networks relevant for communication that haveundergone recent evolutionary changes? To answer this question, I am developing a newresearch line on pragmatics, with an evolutionary and developmental perspective. What role
does human domestication and increased/prolonged parental investment play for language
development? This question suggest that adolescent development of language andcommunication might be a good area for further research. I will present a recent study on theadolescent ability to comprehend and produce requests for feedback through prosodic
information.

Hierarchical structure building in symbol sequence, i.e.,language, mathematics and drawing
Michiru Makuuchi*1*

1

Corresponding Author: makuuchi-michiru@rehab.go.jp
The National Rehabilitation Centre for Persons with Disabilities, Tokorozawa City, Japan

Hierarchical structure is a significant feature of language, but it is found in other cognitive
domain such as music and mathematics. Using fMRI, we have demonstrated Broca’s areabuilds hierarchical structures in sentence processing in German and Japanese, and arithmetic
calculation given in the reverse Polish notation. Recently, we found that drawing has
hierarchical structure as well based on analysis of composition order of parts in complex
object drawing. We believe that semeiotic is the appropriate cover term for these symbol
sequence with hierarchical structure. This theoretical foundation will allow us to study humanunique cognitive abilities such as language, mathematics, drawing, music, etc. with unified
framework.

Syntax in language and music from a perspective of comparative biomusicology
Rie Asano*1*

1

Corresponding Author: rie.asano@uni-koeln.de
Department of Systematic Musicology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

Music is hierarchically structured and its complexity in terms of Chomsky hierarchy
corresponds to that of context-free language (e.g., Rohrmeier, Zuidema, Wiggins, & Scharff,2015). My talk discusses ways to link such abstract theoretical models of cognitive capacities
to cognitive and neural processes within a comparative biological framework. First, I
introduce different levels to investigate language and music as neurocognitive systems, andelucidate problems of explanatory gap (e.g., Embick & Poeppel, 2015; Marr, 1982). Second,by focusing on syntax, I suggest how language and music can be comparatively investigatedat each level as well as across levels. I then discuss the results of two ALE meta-analysis ofmusical syntactic processing and their relation to neural correlates of language syntactic
processing, and introduce a hypothesis to explain the relationship between syntax in language
and music. The hypothesis states that language and music share a set of basic computationaland neural principles, but differ in their degree of expressions on the motor to cognitive
gradient. Finally, I propose a comparative approach putting more focus on cognitive andneural processes by focusing on musical rhythm and the cortico-basal ganglia-thalamocorticalcircuits, and draw implications for the evolution of capacities accounting for hierarchicalcomplexity in music, language, and action.
Embick, D., & Poeppel, D. (2015). Towards a computational(ist) neurobiology of language:
correlational , integrated and explanatory neurolinguistics. Language, Cognition and
Neuroscience, 30(4), 357–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2014.980750
Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation andprocessing of visual information. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Rohrmeier, M., Zuidema, W., Wiggins, G. A., & Scharff, C. (2015). Principles of structurebuilding in music, language and animal song. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 370(1664), 20140097-.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0097

Sharing Patterns, Sharing Intention: A View from Dialogic Syntax
Kazumi Taniguchi
taniguchi.kazumi.8n@kyoto-u.ac.jp
Graduate School of Human and Environmental Studies, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
This paper aims to offer a brief introduction of “dialogic syntax” (Du Bois, 2014) which
points to an intriguing phenomenon called “resonance:” some aspects of utterances are
reproduced and shared in spontaneous conversations to give rise to affinity across utterances.
This paper focuses on resonance of partially schematic syntactic patterns that emerge as “adhoc constructions” in discourse (Brône and Zima, 2014), showing conversational data
observed in English and Japanese. Such sharing of ad hoc constructions can be seen as
cooperative synchronization at the syntactic level, which presupposes (and enhances) sharing
of intention among participants of conversations. The phenomenon treated in this paper willshed light on mechanisms by which a language system is shared and established throughinteractions in a given community, suggesting possibilities of “dialogic bootstrapping” forlanguage evolution.
Brône, G. and E. Zima (2014). “Towards a dialogic construction grammar: Ad hoc routinesand resonance activation.” Cognitive Linguistics 25(3), 457-495.
Du Bois, J. W. (2014). “Towards a dialogic syntax.” Cognitive Linguistics 25(3), 411-441.

The Co-Evolution of Internalization and Externalization in Human Lexicon
Haruka Fujita*1*

1

fujita.haruka.42w@st.kyoto-u.ac.jp
Graduate School of Human and Environmental Studies, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan

Although Generative Grammar (GG) is compatible with evolutionary research in that it
regards human language as a modular system and makes it clear what to investigate, mostresearches in GG (e.g. Berwick & Chomsky, 2016; Chomsky, Gallego, & Ott 2019) focus on
the hierarchical properties of internal thought and consider communicative functions
involving intention sharing as a secondary phenomenon. However, given that language serves
the two major functions of internal thought and external communication, the co-evolutionary
relation between internalization and externalization needs to be considered. I argue that thisrelation is especially evident in the emergence of human lexicon. As cognitive semantics has
shown (Lakoff 1987, Lakoff & Johnson 1980 inter alia), the concepts underlying humanlexicon are classified into concrete concepts and abstract concepts. While concrete concepts
have common physical bases, abstract concepts do not have such universal standards and needa specific idealized cognitive model (Lakoff 1987). The first step of the co-evolution ofinternalization and externalization in human lexicon can be attributed to this property:
concrete concepts can be internally combined into complex linguistic forms without
externalization because of their concreteness, but abstract concepts first need to be sharedthrough externalization. As a second step of the co-evolution, after the expressive power oflanguage involving syntax and intention sharing has developed enough, various concepts
including complex concrete concepts as well as abstract ones will be finally externalized andused for communication. This makes it easier to manipulate them as syntactic objects, for now
they have physical entities such as auditory or visual stimuli. Consequently, more complex
internal combination of lexical concepts is promoted, and these new concepts will be
externalized again. It is this circular interaction of internalization and externalization that has
provided human language with a rich and complex lexicon.
Berwick, R. C. & Chomsky, N. (2016). Why only us: Language and evolution. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N., Gallego, A. J., & Ott, D. (2019). Generative grammar and the faculty oflanguage: Insights, questions, and challenges (3rd version). Available online.
https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003507.

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about themind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

The facilitative effect of prosodic information in online lexical processing: Evidence
from Mandarin Chinese Tone 3 sandhi
Tzu-Yin CHEN*1,2, Yuki HIROSE1, and Takane ITO1*Email: tess5566779@yahoo.co.jp
Language and Information Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
2
Laboratory for Language Development, Center for Brain Science, RIKEN, Saitama, Japan1

Mandarin tone 3 sandhi (T3S) is a phenomenon where a T3 syllable becomes a T2 syllable
when it precedes another T3 syllable (e.g., ni3 ‘you’ + hau3 ‘good’→ni2 hau3 ‘hello’). The
necessary conditions of T3S are that a T3S syllable must be followed by another syllable andthat the following syllable must be of the T3 type. First, two visual world paradigm
experiments were employed to examine whether a T3S syllable helps to predict a following
component’s (i) lexical structure and (ii) tone type. Experiment 1 found that when hearing
input including a T3S syllable (e.g., zhu2 sun3 ‘bamboo-shoot’ → zhu2 sun2…), listeners
looks more to compound objects (e.g., a picture of a bamboo-shoot and cow combination;
zhu2 sun3 + ru3 niu2), suggesting that T3S information anticipates lexical structure.
Experiment 2 found no predictive effect of a T3S syllable on upcoming tone type. When a
T3S modifier was input (e.g., zhu2 sun3 →zhu2 sun2…), no increase of looks was observed
to visual candidates with T3-type head nouns (e.g., a picture of a bamboo-shoot and cow
combination; zhu2 sun3 + ru3 niu2) compared to looks to non-T3-type head nouns (e.g., apicture of a bamboo-shoot and butterfly combination; zhu2 sun3 + hu2 die2). These results
suggest that T3S does not help predict the phonological form of the following component.
Furthermore, T3S application is optional in native use (i.e. a T3 syllable is allowed to remainunchanged even when followed by another T3 syllable). Experiment 3 examined whether
T3S/ unchanged T3 syllable are linked to different structures. The results showed that
listeners associated T3S syllable with N-N compound structure (e.g., a combination ofbamboo-shoot and cow) but unchanged T3 syllable with N-N coordination structure (e.g.,single bamboo-shoot and cow), suggesting that the non-application of T3S facilitates thepresence of a word boundary.

Hirose, Y., & Mazuka, R. (2015). Predictive processing of novel compounds: Evidence from Japanese.
Cognition, 136, 350-358.
Hirose, Y., & Mazuka, R. (2017). Exploiting Pitch Accent Information in Compound Processing: A Comparison
between Adults and 6-to 7-Year-Old Children. Language Learning and Development, 13(4), 375-394.

Table. 1 Auditory stimuli used in Experiment 1a.
T3/ single[zhu2 竹 sun3 筍]b.
T3/ compound (T3S is applied)[zhu2 竹 sun3 筍]+ [ru3 乳 niu2 牛]→ 2-2-3-2
c.
non-T3/single[xiang1 香 jiao1 蕉]d.
non-T3/compound[xiang1 香 jiao1 蕉] [ru3 乳 niu2 牛]“bamboo-shoot”“bamboo-shoot cow”
“banana”“banana cow”

u[Target Single Object]xiang1 香 jiao1 蕉{banana}u[Target Compound Object]xiang1 香 jiao1 蕉 +ru3 乳 niu2 牛[Competitor Compound Object]xiang1 香 jiao1 蕉 +wan3 浣* xiong2 熊{banana raccoon}{banana cow}

Figure. 1 An Example of visual display used in Experiment 1.
Wan3 浣* is the pronounciation in Taiwan Mandarin.

Figure. 2

Proportion of fixation for [Target Compound] +[Competitor Compound] objects in Experiment 1.

Table. 2 Auditory stimuli used in Experiment 2a.
T3 + T3 (T3S is applied)[zhu2 竹 sun3 筍] [ru3 乳 niu2 牛]→ 2-2-3-2b.
T3 + non-T3[zhu2 竹 sun3 筍] [hu2 蝴 die2 蝶]
c.
non-T3 + T3
[xiang1 香 jiao1 蕉] [ru3 乳 niu2 牛]d.
non-T3 + non-T3[xiang1 香 jiao1 蕉] [hu2 蝴 die2 蝶]“bamboo-shoot cow”
“bamboo-shoot butterfly”“banana cow”
“banana butterfly”

u[Distractor 1, 2]
zhu2 竹 sun3 筍+ hu2 蝴 die2 蝶{bamboo-shoot butterfly}

zhu2 竹 sun3 筍+ qi4 企* e2 鵝{bamboo-shoot penguin}[Competitor Object]zhu2 竹 sun3 筍 +wan3 浣* xiong2 熊[Target Object]zhu2 竹 sun3 筍 +ru3 乳 niu2 牛{bamboo-shoot raccoon}{bamboo-shoot cow}

Figure. 3

An Example of visual display used inExperiment 2.

Figure. 4 Proportion of fixation on [Target Compound] + [Competitor
Compound] objects in Experiment 2.

Qi 企* is the pronounciation in Taiwan Mandarin.

Table. 3 Auditory stimuli and paired visual displays used in Experiment 3
a. unchanged T3 + T3
b. T3S + T3
c. lexical T3 + non-T3
Zhu2 sun3 ru3 niu2
Zhu2 sun2 ru3 niu2
Zhu2 sun3 wu1 quei1(bamboo shoot cow,竹筍乳牛)(bamboo shoot cow,竹筍乳牛)(bamboo shoot turtle,竹筍烏龜)

1st syllable

2nd syllable

3rd syllable

d. baseline non-T3 + T3
Qing1 jiao1 ru3 niu2
(green pepper cow,青椒乳牛)

4th syllable(b) T3S vs. (d) basline →← (c) lexical T3 vs. (d) basline← (a) unchanged T3 vs. (d) basline(c) lexical T3 vs. (a) unchanged T3 →Figure. 5 Proportion of fixation on N-N compound interpretation in Experiment 3.

The Combinatorics of Merge and Workspace Right-Sizing
Sandiway Fong1, Robert Berwick2, Jason Ginsburg*3*

jginsbur@cc.osaka-kyoiku.ac.jp
Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA
2
LIDS MIT, Cambridge, USA
3
Department of Educational Collaboration, Osaka Kyoiku University, Kashiwara, Japan
1

Contrary to e.g. Gazzaniga (2008), we believe the marvel we call the human brain is actually
the weak link in our cognitive apparatus. There is ample evidence for this in the biologicaldomain. Our sensory apparatus far outstrips the brain’s capacity to process high-resolution
input. Human eyes are capable of both extreme sensitivity, i.e. single photon level (Tinsley etal. 2016), and peak acuity of 77 cycles/degree (Curcio et al. 1990), all unnecessary for scene
analysis. Olfactory thresholds can be of the order of parts per billion (ppb) (Wackermannová
et al., 2016). Human eardrums can detect vibrations smaller than the diameter of a hydrogen
atom (Fletcher & Munson, 1933). In case after case, the brain does not make use of the full
resolution of our sensory inputs. We believe, for language, that the brain also (must) economize
where it can: Chomsky (2005) terms the pressure for computational efficiency a Third Factor
consideration. This applies to the reduction of Merge to simplest (binary) Merge (cf. Komachi
et al., 2019). By considering a novel assumption about term accessibility with respect to
Minimal Search, we show simplest Merge may follow directly from Workspace (WS) sizing
constraints. Although simplest Merge (by itself) has demonstrably undesirable combinatorics(e.g. from an initial WS of just two lexical items, about 8 million distinct sets can be formed injust 8 Merges), language does not make full use of this resolution. As with our sensory
apparatus, the brain cannot process all Merge possibilities, many of which are cases of iterated
vacuous movement, unattested in data. We demonstrate that the same WS constraints that give
us simplest Merge also rule out many such cases of infinite looping. This is a significant result
because it means no dedicated “wetware” need be evolved to block potentially infinite loops.
Chomsky, N.A. (2005). Three Factors in Language Design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 1–22.
Curcio, C. A., Sloan, K. R., Kalina, R. E., & Hendrickson, A. E. (1990). Human Photoreceptor
Topography. The Journal of Comparative Neurology, 292, 497–523.
Fletcher, H. and Munson, W. A. (1933). Loudness, its definition, measurement and calculation.
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 5, 82–108.
Gazzaniga, M. (2008). Human: The Science Behind What Makes Us Unique. New York,
Harper Collins.
Komachi, M., Kitahara, H., Uchibori, A., & Takita, K. (2019). Generative procedure revisited.
Reports of the Keio Institute of Cultural and Linguistic Studies, 50, 269–283.

Tinsley, J. N., Molodstov, M. U., Prevedel, R., Wartmann, D., Espigulé-Pons, J., Lauwers, M.,& Vaziri, A. (2016). Direct detection of a single photon by humans.

NatureCommunications, 7, 12172.
Wackermannová, M., Pinc, L., & Jebavý, L. (2016). Olfactory sensitivity in mammalian
species. Physiological Research, 65, 369-390.

The Reason of Building Hierarchical Structure: From the View of Recursive
Combination as an Internal Operation
Genta Toya*1, Rie Asano2, and Takashi Hashimoto1*

1

Corresponding Author: toyagenta@gmail.com
School of Knowledge Science, Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Nomi,Japan
2
Department of Systematic Musicology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

There are two proposals for explaining the emergence of hierarchical structures underlying
human language, music, arithmetic, and action sequences. On the one hand, it is proposed thatthe cost of combining element give rise to the hierarchical structures (Mengitsu et al., 2016).
On the other hand, it is suggested that the hierarchical structures are produced by recursive
application of operation combining two items (Everaert et al., 2015), i.e., recursive
combination (RC). The former claim was confirmed by computer simulation. Though thelatter claim was also confirmed by computer simulation (Toya & Hashimoto, 2018), it is thesimulation of physical manipulations related to the combination of elements. So as to prove
the plausibility of the latter claim, it is necessary to confirm that RC evolves as an internal
operation of an individual. In the current study, we aimed to clarify the adaptive significanceand evolutionary conditions of RC in brain processing.
We designed a model with a system of statistical action generation using reinforcement
learning and a system of constructive action generation using combining action
representations. We hypothesize that the function of the current model corresponds to that of
the cortico-basal ganglia-thalamocortical (CBGT) circuits. In order to search the conditions
under which RC evolves in the system of constructive action generation, we conducted theevolutionary simulation of agent that explores and learns the physical rewards in making
tools. As a result, RC of action representation evolved only when a reward function forlearning changes according to tools made by oneself. RC of action possibly solves the
problem "exploration or exploitation," which is taken as the task of reinforcement learning.
RC which generates hierarchical structures evolves without the combining cost. The CBGT
circuit which realizes RC possibly evolved as a solution to explore novel resource.
Everaert, M. B. H., Huybregts, M. A. C., Chomsky, N., Berwick, R. C., & Bolhuis, J. J.
(2015). Structures, not string: Linguistics as part of the cognitive sciences. Trends. Cogn.
Sci. 19, 729–743. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2015.09.008
Mengistu, H., Huizinga, J., Mouret, J-B, & Clune, J. (2016). The Evolutionary Origins of
Hierarchy", PLoS Comput. Biol. 12, e1004829. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004829

Toya, G., & Hashimoto, T. (2018). Recursive Combination Has Adaptability inDiversifiability of Production and Material Culture. Front. Psychol. 9, 1–17. doi:
10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01512

Coupling for Life:
Co-evolution of grammar and prosody in dialogic interaction
John W. Du Bois *1*

1

Corresponding Author: dubois@ucsb.edu
Department of Linguistics, University of California, Santa Barbara, USA

Every living organism faces ultimately the same problem: how to avoid decay into
thermodynamic equilibrium (death). According to Schrodinger (1943), the organism solves
this by "continually sucking orderliness from its environment". Evolution has discovered
many different ways of life, each defined by a strategy for coupling with the environment to
extract order and information from it. Yet the human way of life is unique in the variety,novelty, and rapidity of its coupling strategies, as reflected in the diversity of languages,
cultures, and practices. Cultural accumulation has given us unprecedented power to shape ourown adaptive niche, as we collaborate to solve the novel coupling problems posed by each
new environment. To learn the "secret of our success" (Henrich, 2016), we must ask howhuman hypersociality (Tomasello, Carpenter, Call, Behne & Moll, 2005) motivates us tocouple our attention, emotions, and thoughts with others, as we enact the "extended mind"(Clark, 2008) that makes cultural accumulation possible. But an extended mind must haveefficient ways of distributing its cognitive work across collaborating individuals (Hutchins &Johnson, 2009; Kolodny & Edelman, 2018). How does language help humans create new
ways of coupling for life?
In this talk I argue that what makes the human way of life possible is our uniquecapacity for rapid, reversible "soft" coupling at two levels: (1) Conversational partners couple
their words, thoughts, emotions, and actions in their sociocultural environment; (2) this thenmediates their soft coupling to the external environment. Based on evidence from a corpus of
naturally occurring conversation (Du Bois, Chafe, Meyer, Thompson, Englebretson &Martey, 2000-2005), I document the strategies interlocutors use to construct resonance,
defined as the "activation of affinities across utterances" (Du Bois, 2014). Prosody provides
critical infrastructure for building the structure of resonance. Specifically, the intonation unit
serves as a prelinguistically available "prosodic niche", providing the emotional motivation
for joint attention that is a precondition for dialogic coupling. The prosodic niche provides a
predictable locus for unpredictable work, creating a workspace for cognitive integration
within and across the extended mind. In the long term, behavioral strategies for coupling in
the dialogic moment are learned and retained for reuse, yielding enduring consequences forthe emergence and evolution of linguistic structure. Evolved grammars in turn support greater

complexity of collaborative interaction, allowing new plasticity and creativity, all mediatedby coupling through resonance in the prosodic niche.
Clark, Andy (2008). Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Du Bois, John W. (2014). Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics 25(3): 359–410.
Du Bois, John W., Chafe, Wallace L., Meyer, Charles, Thompson, Sandra A., Englebretson,
Robert & Martey, Nii (2000-2005). Santa Barbara corpus of spoken American English,
Parts 1-4. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.
Henrich, Joseph (2016). The secret of our success: How culture is driving human evolution,
domesticating our species, and making us smarter. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hutchins, Edwin & Johnson, Christine M. (2009). Modeling the emergence of language as anembodied collective cognitive activity. Topics in Cognitive Science 1(3): 523–546.
Kolodny, Oren & Edelman, Shimon (2018). The evolution of the capacity for language: The
ecological context and adaptive value of a process of cognitive hijacking. PhilosophicalTransactions of the Royal Society B 373(1743): 20170052.
Schrödinger, Erwin (1943). What is life? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tomasello, Michael, Carpenter, Malinda, Call, Josep, Behne, Tanya & Moll, Henrike (2005).
Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral andBrain Sciences 28: 675–735.

Vocal Combinations in Birds: Implications for Language Evolution
Sabrina Engesser*1*

1

Corresponding Author: sabrina.engesser@outlook.com
Department of Comparative Linguistics, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

Language’s generative capacity is one of its key characterising features. A finite set of
meaningless sounds can be combined to create meaningful words (phonology /combinatoriality), which can then be assembled into higher-order structures with derived
meaning (syntax / compositionality). Comparative work on non-human animals investigating
the evolutionary origin of such combinatorial abilities has mainly focused on the vocal
repertoires of singing species or primates. Whilst these studies have demonstrated
rudimentary combinatorial capacities outside of humans, evidence for basic phoneme-like or
semantically compositional structures in non-human communication systems is rare. In thistalk, I will present data on combinatorial structures in the discrete vocal repertoire of two
cooperatively breeding birds: chestnut-crowned babblers (Pomatostomus ruficeps) andsouthern pied babblers (Turdoides bicolor). Furthermore, I will discuss the value of thecomparative approach as a means of investigating similarities and differences among nonhuman and human communication systems. Ultimately, comparative data, particularly from
species distantly related to humans, can help to unveil both the selective drivers promoting
combinatorial capacities and potential precursors of language’s combinatorial layers.

Referentiality and compositionality in bird calls
Toshitaka Suzuki*1*

1

Corresponding Author: toshi.n.suzuki@gmail.com
The Hakubi Center for Advanced Research, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan

In human speech, words often convey independent meanings and syntax allows combining
multiple words into more complex, compositional expressions. In contrast, animalcommunication signals have typically been considered as motivational: vocalizations merelyreflect emotion or arousal of signalers and do not provide compositional messages even when
multiple units are combined. However, recent field studies have challenged this assumption
by showing that several species of birds and nonhuman primates may be able not only toassign independent meanings to acoustically discrete vocalizations, but also to combine thesesignals into higher lexical sequences. In this talk, I introduce my recent studies on vocal
communication in a small bird species, the Japanese tit (Parus minor). Japanese tits produce
acoustically discrete calls in a variety of contexts, such as when encountering a predator andwhen facilitating group cohesion. Field experiments have revealed that these calls may not
merely reflect arousal of signalers, but also convey information about external referents, suchas the presence of a particular type of predator. In addition, these birds are able to combine
meaningful calls into higher structured sequences according to an ordering rule. Playback
experiments revealed that receiver tits are able to use an ordering rule to extract compound
meanings from call sequences even if these sequences are composed of novel combinations ofcalls. These findings demonstrate interesting parallels between bird calls and human language,
opening new avenues for exploring the origins and evolution of linguistic capabilities.

"Syntax" in animal vocalizations: limitations and perspectives
Kazuo Okanoya **1Corresponding Author: cokanoya@mail.ecc.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Department of Life Sciences, The University of Tokyo, JapanA part of motivation to study “syntax” in animal vocalizations is to detect a key tounderstand emergence of human language. The use of the term “syntax” to refer to asequential characteristic in animal vocalization became popular when Peter Marler (1977)
gave a distinction between phonological syntax and lexical syntax. Former refers to
combinations of vocal items that changes sound patterns, but that do not change meanings.
Later refers to combinations of sound items that also change referential meanings. Hurford(2011) suggested combinatorial syntax to refer to the former and compositional syntax torefer to later. The search for combinatorial syntax has been more directed towards the study ofanimal songs as songs have combinatorial richness, while that for combinatorial syntax istargeted in animal calls as calls are context specific. General design in such an experiment is
to test for production and perception.
In combinatorial syntax, search for structural complexity based on Chomsky hierarchy
have been a popular procedure. On perceptual side, the use of an artificial grammar to test thedegree of structural complexity animals can learn is tested. To test production complexity,
cautions must be paid not to over interpret occasional occurrence of context free grammar. To
test perceptual ability, stimuli must carefully be designed (ten Cate, 2017). To show animal
vocalizations bear compositional generativity, the threshold must be set even higher. However,Engesser and Townsend (2019) suggest more finer distinction of combinatoriality that could
also change holistic meaning of vocalizations.
My suggestion for combinatory syntax study is to assume animal vocalizations are at
finite-state level and find proximate and ultimate causes that produced the sequential system.
My suggestion for compositional syntax study is to test animal cognitive ability in the lab andobserve natural use of such ability in the field. Both requires long way to go, but I believethese are one of few procedures that leads us to the emergence of language.
Engesser, S., & Townsend, S. W. (2019). Combinatoriality in the vocal systems of nonhumananimals. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, e1493.
Hurford, J. R. (2011). The origins of grammar: Language in the light of evolution II. OUP
Oxford.

Marler, P. (1977). The structure of animal communication sounds. Recognition of complex
acoustic signals: report of Dahlem workshop.
ten Cate, C. (2017). Assessing the uniqueness of language: Animal grammatical abilities takecenter stage. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 24(1), 91-96.

Online Presentation

We Were Not Alone: The Gradual Evolution of the Language Capacity
Dieter Hillert*1,2*

Corresponding Author: dhillert@ucsd.com
1
ACTRI, UC San Diego, La Jolla, USA
2
SHSL, San Diego State University, San Diego, USA
Modern humans are unique in the world of extant species as they use a finite set of rules tocreate and express an infinite amount of new meanings. Here, we discuss how this neurally
implemented language capacity might have emerged in the hominin lineage. Genetic (copycode mechanism of SRGAP2), neuroanatomical (cranial capacity and connectivity), andcognitive-behavioral data (development of tool and art production) show that the emergenceof the human language capacity does not coincide with the beginning of behavioral modernity(BM) ca. 100-50 ka, but much earlier (see Figure 1). These findings support the view that thebrain anatomy of modern humans and of our known sister species Neanderthals andDenisovans (Homo sapiens sensu lato) were language-ready (Dediu & Levinson, 2013;
Hillert, 2015). The data show, moreover, that the roots of the modern language capacity canbe traced back to a precursor language stage in our immediate ancestor Homo erectus. Thisaccount is consistent with Bickerton’s (1990) protolinguistic analysis of pidgin and creole
languages as well as with Jackendoff’s (1999) linear grammar approach based on the analysisof less common languages and linguistic phenomena in acquisition and disorders. In
considering fossil records along with evidence of symbolic-cognitive behavior, we conclude
here that Homo erectus’ language capacity was presumably premodern. The evolution of alanguage capacity supporting morpho-syntactic structures of a fully-fledged modern language
may be therefore triggered by a co-evolving exponential accumulation of cultural behavior
and cognitive workspace expansion in our species. In contrast to recent claims that the humanlanguage capacity suddenly emerged with the appearance of BM in our species (Berwick &Chomsky, 2016), we find overwhelming evidence that we were not alone and that thiscapacity evolved gradually, reasonable during the late Homo erectus epoch 1 ma or even
earlier.
Berwick, R.C. & Chomsky, N. (2016). Why Only Us: Language and Evolution. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Bickerton, D. (1990). Language and Species. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dediu, D. & Levinson, S. (2013). On the antiquity of language: the reinterpretation of Neandertal linguistic capacities and its consequences. Frontiers in Psychology 4 (397). doi:
10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00397
Hillert, D. G. (2015). On the Evolving Biology of Language. Frontiers in Psychology 6(1796). doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01796.
Jackendoff, R. (1999). Possible stages in the evolution of language. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences 3, 272-279.

Pre-Neanderthals ?

Figure 1.

Timeline of genetic, neuroanatomical, cognitive-behavioral conditions indicating orcontributing to the gradual evolution of the human language capacity (BM = behavioral
modernity).

Logical Cells: Combinatory Categorial Grammar as a unified framework for describing
melodic improvisation and harmonic analysis
Sebastian Klaßmann*1*

1

Corresponding Author: sebastian.klassmann@gmail.com
Department of Systematic Musicology, Institute of Musicology, Faculty of Arts andHumanities, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

Philip Johnson-Laird (2002) suggests that tonal, melodic improvisation in jazz music must be
directly linked to a harmonic consensus of interacting musicians that is in turn based on arepresentation of the underlying compositional constituents of the piece being performed.
Modelling harmonic structures by means of using formal methods from computational
linguistics is nothing new. However, when specifically looking at jazz from this perspective,
melodic improvisation is a major constituant of performance and yet remains mostly
unreflected upon – there appears to be no real methodological interface between it andsyntactic models of harmonic progressions. Larson (2002) receives linear improvisation as
being based on expectation, resolution and surprise which are in turn dependent upon acontextual function of a given melodic unit. From a harmonic perspective, a combinatory
categorial grammar (CCG, cf. Steedman, 1996; Granroth-Wilding, 2013; Granroth-Wilding& Steedman, 2014) formally integrates this notion. This presentation focusses on early ideas
regarding potential structural interfaces between harmonic consensus and melodic
extrapolation which form the basis of my PhD research. This approach seeks to incorporate
the notions that improvised melodies in jazz mostly make sense on a cellular level – i.e. interms of local combinations of short note sequences as proposed by Frieler et al. (2016) – andthat by recombining archetypical melodic cells, convincing lines in the jazz idiom can begenerated (cf. Ligon, 1996; Vincent, 2015). The main goal of this presentation is to discuss
the possibility of understanding these melodic cells as belonging to complex syntactic
categories which are inherited from and thus directly interface with a structural harmonic
representation that can be described by means of the CCG formalism. These concepts will be
discussed based on my own analysis and annotation of melodic cells offered by Vincent(2015), as well as melodic archetypes taken from Bert Ligon’s (1996) work.
Frieler, K., Pfleiderer, M., Zaddach, W. G., & Abeßer, J. (2016). Midlevel analysis ofmonophonic jazz solos: A new approach to the study of improvisation. Musicae
Scientiae, 20(2), 143-162.

Granroth-Wilding, M. (2013). Harmonic analysis of music using combinatory categorial
grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
Granroth-Wilding, M., & Steedman, M. (2014). A robust parser-interpreter for jazz chord
sequences. Journal of New Music Research, 43(4), 355-374.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2002). How jazz musicians improvise. Music Perception: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 19(3), 415-442.
Larson, S. (2002). Musical forces, melodic expectation, and jazz melody. Music Perception:
An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19(3), 351-385.
Ligon, B. (1996). Connecting chords with linear harmony. Hal Leonard Corporation.
Steedman, M. (1996). The blues and the abstract truth: Music and mental models. In A.
Garnham, & J. Oakhill (Eds.) Mental models in cognitive science: Essays in honour ofPhil Johnson-Laird, 305-318.
Vincent, R. (2015). Jazz Guitar Soloing - The Cellular Approach. Sher Music Corporation.