title: The fitness and functionality of culturally evolved communication systems.
abstract: This paper assesses whether human communication systems undergo the same progressive adaptation seen in animal communication systems and concrete artefacts. Four experiments compared the fitness of ad hoc sign systems created under different conditions when participants play a graphical communication task. Experiment 1 demonstrated that when participants are organized into interacting communities, a series of signs evolve that enhance individual learning and promote efficient decoding. No such benefits are found for signs that result from the local interactions of isolated pairs of interlocutors. Experiments 2 and 3 showed that the decoding benefits associated with community evolved signs cannot be attributed to superior sign encoding or detection. Experiment 4 revealed that naive overseers were better able to identify the meaning of community evolved signs when compared with isolated pair developed signs. Hence, the decoding benefits for community evolved signs arise from their greater residual iconicity. We argue that community evolved sign systems undergo a process of communicative selection and adaptation that promotes optimized sign systems. This results from the interplay between sign diversity and a global alignment constraint; pairwise interaction introduces a range of competing signs and the need to globally align on a single sign-meaning mapping for each referent applies selection pressure.
authors.affiliation: The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia. nfay@psy.uwa.edu.au
authors.forename: Nicolas
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Fay
authors.forename: Simon
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Garrod
authors.forename: Leo
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Roberts
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D002755:Choice Behavior / Q000502:physiology; D003142:Communication; D003468:Cultural Evolution; D006801:Humans; D007858:Learning / Q000502:physiology*; D010775:Photic Stimulation; D012660:Semantics
references.citation: Cognition. 2005 Mar;95(2):201-36
references.pmid: 15694646
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Mar 20;104(12):5241-5
references.pmid: 17360393
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Feb 15;102(7):2661-5
references.pmid: 15699343
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Jun 26;104(26):10944-9
references.pmid: 17537923
references.citation: Behav Brain Sci. 2006 Aug;29(4):329-47; discussion 347-83
references.pmid: 17094820
references.citation: Cogn Sci. 2005 Sep 10;29(5):737-67
references.pmid: 21702792
references.citation: Behav Brain Sci. 2005 Oct;28(5):675-91; discussion 691-735
references.pmid: 16262930
references.citation: Cogn Sci. 2010 Apr;34(3):351-86
references.pmid: 21564217
references.citation: Annu Rev Psychol. 2003;54:145-73
references.pmid: 12359915
references.citation: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2008 Nov 12;363(1509):3529-39
references.pmid: 18799419
references.citation: Vision Res. 1995 Sep;35(17):2503-22
references.pmid: 8594817
references.citation: Nature. 2007 Oct 11;449(7163):713-6
references.pmid: 17928859
references.citation: Artif Life. 2002;8(2):185-215
references.pmid: 12171637
references.citation: Behav Brain Sci. 2004 Apr;27(2):169-90; discussion 190-226
references.pmid: 15595235
references.citation: Cogn Sci. 2007 Mar 4;31(2):285-309
references.pmid: 21635298
references.citation: Cognition. 1994 Dec;53(3):181-215
references.pmid: 7842633
references.citation: Nature. 2007 Oct 11;449(7163):717-20
references.pmid: 17928860
references.citation: Cogn Sci. 2007 Nov 12;31(6):961-87
references.pmid: 21635324
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Jul;7(7):300-307
references.pmid: 12860188
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Appl. 2000 Dec;6(4):291-306
references.pmid: 11218339