Human language is unique among animals. We assume that complex cognitive capacities in general and language in particular evolved gradually and thus are manifest in different kinds and/or degrees in other animals demonstrating social communication. This assumption is supported by the fact that we can train social species from very different groups of animals (e.g. great apes, dolphins, dogs, parrots) to understand and in several cases even use abstract symbols for communication with humans and conspecifics. Even simple grammatical rules for sequences of 2-3 symbols can be trained to be understood by several species (e.g. great apes, dogs, dolphins). Even though human language training in these species takes considerable time and effort, it convinces us that cognitive foundations for language are present in other species, and, given the relevant selection pressures, symbolic communication could evolve in other species.
Nevertheless, proof of symbolic communication in the wild, i.e., in the natural communication systems of animals, is elusive. Some basic capabilities necessary for language development and usage can be found in social animals (e.g., babbling, turn-taking, etc.), but others are very difficult to demonstrate, for example joint attention, and in particular, true symbolism, i.e., abstract conventional symbol use. The most famous claim - the “referential” alarm calls of the vervet monkeys - has been recently reviewed and found to be problematic, because it has been shown that the “referential” alarm calls are also used in intra-species aggression, and thus seem to be aggressive signals of various degrees of urgency rather than labels for different predators. Additionally, these calls are not learned, but seem to be primarily innate. Conventional symbols, by definition, must be learned. The same problems of interpretation seem to apply to other claims about symbolism in nonhuman animals.
In this Research Topic we aim to address various issues and problems faced by comparative research on complex communication. We would like to begin with an operational definition of language/symbolic/referential communication and a conceptual framework that will enable researchers from different fields to compare animal signal repertoires by functional criteria and thus will allow identification of functional flexibility of signals. Functional flexibility in signal use is essential for evolving true symbolic communication and therefore one of the first steps towards language. We also would like to discuss practical and conceptual problems that field researchers face in describing animal signal repertoires, and how these problems may best be addressed.
Another matter of concern is why only humans have taken "the leap" into true symbolism, at least as far as we know. What circumstances could have provided the crucial selection pressures for this to happen? Comparison with other social species with complex communication systems might yield some hypotheses about circumstances under which complex communication evolved in general and in humans in particular.
Please note: The Topic Editors are especially interested in receiving Original Research, Reviews, Hypothesis & Theory pieces, Opinions, and Perspective papers. This Research Topic will not accept Data Reports. An abstract MUST be submitted prior to any manuscript, with Topic Editors expecting an abstract of around 350 words.
Human language is unique among animals. We assume that complex cognitive capacities in general and language in particular evolved gradually and thus are manifest in different kinds and/or degrees in other animals demonstrating social communication. This assumption is supported by the fact that we can train social species from very different groups of animals (e.g. great apes, dolphins, dogs, parrots) to understand and in several cases even use abstract symbols for communication with humans and conspecifics. Even simple grammatical rules for sequences of 2-3 symbols can be trained to be understood by several species (e.g. great apes, dogs, dolphins). Even though human language training in these species takes considerable time and effort, it convinces us that cognitive foundations for language are present in other species, and, given the relevant selection pressures, symbolic communication could evolve in other species.
Nevertheless, proof of symbolic communication in the wild, i.e., in the natural communication systems of animals, is elusive. Some basic capabilities necessary for language development and usage can be found in social animals (e.g., babbling, turn-taking, etc.), but others are very difficult to demonstrate, for example joint attention, and in particular, true symbolism, i.e., abstract conventional symbol use. The most famous claim - the “referential” alarm calls of the vervet monkeys - has been recently reviewed and found to be problematic, because it has been shown that the “referential” alarm calls are also used in intra-species aggression, and thus seem to be aggressive signals of various degrees of urgency rather than labels for different predators. Additionally, these calls are not learned, but seem to be primarily innate. Conventional symbols, by definition, must be learned. The same problems of interpretation seem to apply to other claims about symbolism in nonhuman animals.
In this Research Topic we aim to address various issues and problems faced by comparative research on complex communication. We would like to begin with an operational definition of language/symbolic/referential communication and a conceptual framework that will enable researchers from different fields to compare animal signal repertoires by functional criteria and thus will allow identification of functional flexibility of signals. Functional flexibility in signal use is essential for evolving true symbolic communication and therefore one of the first steps towards language. We also would like to discuss practical and conceptual problems that field researchers face in describing animal signal repertoires, and how these problems may best be addressed.
Another matter of concern is why only humans have taken "the leap" into true symbolism, at least as far as we know. What circumstances could have provided the crucial selection pressures for this to happen? Comparison with other social species with complex communication systems might yield some hypotheses about circumstances under which complex communication evolved in general and in humans in particular.
Please note: The Topic Editors are especially interested in receiving Original Research, Reviews, Hypothesis & Theory pieces, Opinions, and Perspective papers. This Research Topic will not accept Data Reports. An abstract MUST be submitted prior to any manuscript, with Topic Editors expecting an abstract of around 350 words.
