title: Cultural evolution: implications for understanding the human language faculty and its evolution.
abstract: Human language is unique among the communication systems of the natural world: it is socially learned and, as a consequence of its recursively compositional structure, offers open-ended communicative potential. The structure of this communication system can be explained as a consequence of the evolution of the human biological capacity for language or the cultural evolution of language itself. We argue, supported by a formal model, that an explanatory account that involves some role for cultural evolution has profound implications for our understanding of the biological evolution of the language faculty: under a number of reasonable scenarios, cultural evolution can shield the language faculty from selection, such that strongly constraining language-specific learning biases are unlikely to evolve. We therefore argue that language is best seen as a consequence of cultural evolution in populations with a weak and/or domain-general language faculty.
authors.affiliation: Division of Psychology, Cognition and Communication Research Centre, Northumbria University, Newcastle, UK. kenny.smith@northumbria.ac.uk
authors.forename: Kenny
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Smith
authors.forename: Simon
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Kirby
mesh_terms: D005075:Biological Evolution; D003468:Cultural Evolution; D006801:Humans; D033181:Information Dissemination; D007802:Language; D007858:Learning / Q000502:physiology*; D008962:Models, Theoretical
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Mar 20;104(12):5241-5
references.pmid: 17360393
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2000 Jul;4(7):258-267
references.pmid: 10859570
references.citation: Cognition. 2001 Mar;78(3):B53-64
references.pmid: 11124355
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2004 Mar;48(2):127-62
references.pmid: 14732409
references.citation: Science. 1996 Dec 13;274(5294):1926-8
references.pmid: 8943209
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2002 Sep;13(5):431-6
references.pmid: 12219809
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2004 Sep;49(2):85-117
references.pmid: 15304368
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 1997 Apr;1(1):9-12
references.pmid: 21223847
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 1986 Sep;115(3):211-35
references.pmid: 2428917
references.citation: Nature. 2006 Apr 27;440(7088):1204-7
references.pmid: 16641998
references.citation: Artif Life. 2002;8(2):185-215
references.pmid: 12171637
references.citation: Artif Life. 2002;8(1):25-54
references.pmid: 12020420
references.citation: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2008 Nov 12;363(1509):3503-14
references.pmid: 18801717
references.citation: Science. 2002 Nov 22;298(5598):1569-79
references.pmid: 12446899
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Jul 6;96(14):8028-33
references.pmid: 10393942
references.citation: Science. 2004 Jan 16;303(5656):377-80
references.pmid: 14726592
references.citation: Nature. 2005 Sep 1;437(7055):52-5
references.pmid: 16136127
references.citation: J Theor Biol. 2004 May 7;228(1):127-42
references.pmid: 15064088
references.citation: J Theor Biol. 2005 Apr 7;233(3):435-49
references.pmid: 15652151
references.citation: Behav Brain Sci. 2008 Oct;31(5):489-508; discussion 509-58
references.pmid: 18826669
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 1999 Oct 22;266(1433):2131-6
references.pmid: 10902547
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Jan;7(1):19-22
references.pmid: 12517354
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2005 Aug;134(3):406-19
references.pmid: 16131271
references.citation: Science. 2001 Jan 5;291(5501):114-8
references.pmid: 11141560
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Aug 5;105(31):10681-6
references.pmid: 18667697
references.citation: Nature. 2000 Mar 30;404(6777):495-8
references.pmid: 10761917
references.citation: Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2004 Jun;1016:724-35
references.pmid: 15313802
references.citation: Sci Am. 1960 Sep;203:89-96
references.pmid: 14402211
references.citation: Cogn Sci. 2007 May 6;31(3):441-80
references.pmid: 21635304