title: Why is combinatorial communication rare in the natural world, and why is language an exception to this trend?
abstract: In a combinatorial communication system, some signals consist of the combinations of other signals. Such systems are more efficient than equivalent, non-combinatorial systems, yet despite this they are rare in nature. Why? Previous explanations have focused on the adaptive limits of combinatorial communication, or on its purported cognitive difficulties, but neither of these explains the full distribution of combinatorial communication in the natural world. Here, we present a nonlinear dynamical model of the emergence of combinatorial communication that, unlike previous models, considers how initially non-communicative behaviour evolves to take on a communicative function. We derive three basic principles about the emergence of combinatorial communication. We hence show that the interdependence of signals and responses places significant constraints on the historical pathways by which combinatorial signals might emerge, to the extent that anything other than the most simple form of combinatorial communication is extremely unlikely. We also argue that these constraints can be bypassed if individuals have the socio-cognitive capacity to engage in ostensive communication. Humans, but probably no other species, have this ability. This may explain why language, which is massively combinatorial, is such an extreme exception to nature's general trend for non-combinatorial communication.
authors.affiliation: Evolutionary Anthropology Research Group, Department of Anthropology, Durham University, Dawson Building, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, UK. t.c.scott-phillips@durham.ac.uk
authors.forename: Thomas C
authors.initials: TC
authors.lastname: Scott-Phillips
authors.forename: Richard A
authors.initials: RA
authors.lastname: Blythe
mesh_terms: D000819:Animal Communication; D000818:Animals; D006801:Humans; D007802:Language; D008954:Models, Biological
keywords: animal signals; combinatorial communication; communication; evolution; language; ostension
references.citation: Anim Cogn. 2011 Sep;14(5):745-67
references.pmid: 21533821
references.citation: Neuron. 2010 Mar 25;65(6):795-814
references.pmid: 20346756
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Dec 22;106(51):22026-31
references.pmid: 20007377
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Jul 6;96(14):8028-33
references.pmid: 10393942
references.citation: J Evol Biol. 2008 Mar;21(2):387-95
references.pmid: 18205776
references.citation: Brain Lang. 2012 Mar;120(3):303-9
references.pmid: 22032914
references.citation: Nature. 2006 May 18;441(7091):303
references.pmid: 16710411
references.citation: J Theor Biol. 2007 May 21;246(2):225-33
references.pmid: 17280687
references.citation: Sci Am. 1960 Sep;203:89-96
references.pmid: 14402211
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2004 Nov 22;271(1555):2337-43
references.pmid: 15556886
references.citation: Curr Biol. 2008 Mar 11;18(5):R202-3
references.pmid: 18334192
references.citation: Anim Behav. 2000 Feb;59(2):259-268
references.pmid: 10675247
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2012 May 22;279(1735):1943-9
references.pmid: 22217724
references.citation: J Theor Biol. 2008 Jul 7;253(1):131-41
references.pmid: 18405922
references.citation: Nature. 2000 Mar 30;404(6777):495-8
references.pmid: 10761917