Abstract
This paper investigates the roles that abstraction and representation have in activities associated with language. Activities such as associative learning and counting require both the abilities to abstract from and accurately represent the environment. These activities are successfully carried out among vocal learners aside from humans, thereby suggesting that nonhuman animals share something like our capacity for abstraction and representation. The identification of these capabilities in other species provides additional insights into the development of language.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
See Pinker (1994).
See Grice (1989).
This account of intention is in line with Bratman (1999).
For present purposes, I am using ‘property’ in a metaphysically weak sense. Terms such as ‘trait’, ‘attribute’, and ‘characteristic’ are each suitable substitutes. For ease of discussion, I will use ‘property’.
This is only one account of abstraction; van Fraassen (2008) treats abstraction as the removal of a property.
Levy and Bechtel (2013) develop an account of abstraction to discover mechanisms without evoking abstracta.
For a discussion of objects being structured wholes see Koslicki (2008).
There is much debate surrounding the nature of structures themselves and their relationships to objects. For one critique see Psillos (2006).
Another candidate for a formal description might be A(o) = [(Rop & ~ Rpo) & ◇(Soq & p ≠ q)], where ‘◇’ is the modal operator for ‘possibility’. But there is another candidate structural relationship if abstraction occurs, since abstraction ignores some properties. It is possible that once S and R are recognized, there are no other structural relationships existing insofar as the object is merely the union of S and R. This is an unlikely outcome, given comments below on the difficulties of providing a complete description.
Much of what is said here is phrased in substance-based terms to highlight the distinctions between properties and objects. I believe that we can (and should) frame the relevant partitioning of objects and properties in terms of activities and processes. For a process-based mereology along these lines see Seibt (2003).
Sound frequencies above 20,000 Hz are not typically heard by humans, while many nonhuman animals (e.g., dogs) are capable of detecting them. There are also nonhuman animals (e.g., bees) capable of detecting ultraviolet light that is beyond the “visible spectrum” of 390 to 700 nm.
Different structural arrangements of the same properties can result in different characteristics.
This is consistent with the ontic structure realist claim that all that exists is structure. See (Ladyman and Ross 2007).
I do not restrict personhood to only humans, but it is at least obvious that if there is such a thing as personhood then humans are suitable candidates.
One potentially surprising case arises from research on ants that indicates that they may learn new routes by running in tandem (Leadbeater et al. 2006).
Alex, the African Grey, has been observed obtaining an understanding of some abstract concepts. See Pepperberg (2013).
We don’t directly observe beliefs, desires, or intentions. Most of our beliefs about others possessing a theory of mind are the result of a person reporting on those beliefs, desires, or intentions.
See van Fraassen (2008) for a thorough discussion of the scientific use of representations.
My aim here is not to adjudicate among the disparate positions, although much of what I say here is consistent with the view that animals at least appear to share in our abilities to mental time travel to some degree (Corballis 2013).
Seed and Byrne (2010) also discuss the possibility of animal tool use and problem solving as indicators of the mental abilities shared by both human and nonhuman animals.
Senghas (2003) further discusses the development and changes of Nicaraguan Sign Language.
These cases do further suggest that language is not entirely shaped by intrinsic factors.
There are reports suggesting that social interactions contribute to the complexity of language. See Goldstein et al. (2003) for a discussion of birdsong development in social communities.
References
Alerstram, T., Hedenström, A., & Åkesson, S. (2003). Long-distance migration: evolution and determinants. Oikos, 103(2), 247–260.
Allen, J., Weinrich, M., Hoppitt, W., & Rendell, L. (2013). Network-based diffusion analysis reveals cultural transmission of lobtail feeding in humpback whales. Science, 340, 485–488.
Boughman, J. W. (1998). Vocal learning by greater spear-nosed bats. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 265(1392), 227–233.
Brainard, M. S., & Doupe, A. J. (2002). What songbirds teach us about learning. Nature, 417(6886), 351–358.
Brannon, E. M., & Terrace, H. S. (1998). Ordering of the numerosities. Science, 282, 746–749.
Brannon, M. E., & Terrace, H. S. (2000). Representation of the numerosities 1–9 by rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta). Journal of Experimental Psychology, 26(1), 31–49.
Bratman, M. E. (1999). Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Cantlon, J. F., & Brannon, E. M. (2006a). Shared system for ordering small and large numbers in monkeys and humans. Psychological Science, 17(5), 401–406.
Cantlon, J. F., & Brannon, E. M. (2006b). The effect of heterogeneity on numerical ordering in rhesus monkeys. Infancy, 9(2), 173–189.
Caro, T., & Hauser, M. (1992). Is there teaching in nonhuman animals? Quarterly Review of Biology, 67(2), 151–174.
Corballis, M. C. (2013). The wandering rat: response to suddendorf. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(4), 152.
Daily, J. M., Emery, N. J., & Clayton, N. S. (2010). Avian theory of mind and counter espionage by food-caching western scrub-hays (Aphelocoma californica). European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 7, 17–37.
Darwin, C. (1936). The Origin of Speices and The Descent of Man. New York: The Modern Library.
de Waal, F. B. (2013). Animal conformists. Science, 340, 437–738.
Fitch, W., Hauser, M., & Chomsky, N. (2005). The evolution of the language faculty: clarifications and implications. Cognition, 97(2), 179–210.
Fromkin, V., Krashen, S., Curtiss, S., Rigler, D., & Rigler, M. (1974). The development of language in genie: a case of language acquisition beyond the “critical period”. Brain and Language, 1(1), 81–107.
Garland, E. C., Goldizen, A. W., Rekdahl, M. L., Constantine, R., Garrigue, C., Hauser, N. D., et al. (2011). Dyanamic horizontal cultural transmission of humpback whale song at the ocean basin scale. Current Biology, 21(8), 687–691.
Goldstein, M. H., King, A. P., & West, M. J. (2003). Social interaction shapes babbling: testing parallels between birdsong and speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(13), 8030–8035.
Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298, 1569–1579.
Heyman, K. (2007). Hippocampal cells help rats think ahead. Science, 318, 900.
Hume, D. (1999). In T. L. Beauchamp (Ed.), An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hume, D. (2000). In D. F. Norton & M. J. Norton (Eds.), A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hunt, G. R., & Gray, R. D. (2003). Diversification and cumulative evolution in New Caledonian crow tool manufacture. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 270(1517), 867–874.
Hunt, S., Low, J., & Burns, K. (2008). Adaptive numerical competency in a food-hoarding songbird. Proceedings: Biological Sciences, 275(1649), 2373–2379.
Jackendoff, R., & Pinker, S. (2005). The nature of the language faculty and its implications for evolution of language: reply to fitch, hauser, and chomsky. Cognition, 97, 211–225.
Jadhav, S. P., Kemere, C., German, P. W., & Frank, L. M. (2012). Awake hippocampal sharp-wave riples support spatial memory. Science, 336, 1454–1458.
Janik, V. M. (2013). Cognitive Skills in Bottlenose Dolphin Communication. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(4), 157–159.
Kitcher, P., & Salmon, W. C. (Eds.). (1989). Scientific Explanation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Koslicki, K. (2008). The Structure of Objects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Krützen, M., Mann, J., Heithaus, M. R., Connor, R. C., Bejder, L., & Sherwin, W. B. (2005). Cultural transmission of tool use in bottlenose dolphins. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(25), 8939–8943.
Ladyman, J., & Ross, D. (2007). Every Thing Must Go. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Leadbeater, E., Raine, N. E., & Chittka, L. (2006). Social learning: ants and the meaning of teaching. Current Biology, 16(9), R323–R325.
Levine, A. (2009). Partition epistemology and arguments from analogy. Synthese, 166, 593–600.
Levy, A., & Bechtel, W. (2013). Abstraction and the organization of mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 80, 241–261.
Lewis, D. (1986). On the Plurality of Worlds. Malden: Blackwell.
Matsuzsawa, T. (2013). Evolution of the brain and social behavior in chimpanzees. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 23, 443–449.
McBride, A. F., & Hebb, D. O. (1948). Behavior of the captive bottle-nose dolphin tursiops truncatus. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 41(2), 111–123.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1958). Phenomenology of Perception. (C. Smith, Trans.) New York: Routledge.
Noad, M. J., Cato, D. H., Bryden, M. M., Jenner, M.-N., & Jenner, K. C. (2000). Cultural revolution in whale songs. Nature, 408(6812), 537–537.
Pepperberg, I. M. (1987). Evidence for conceptual quantitative abilities in the African grey parrot: labeling of cardinal sets. Ethology, 75(1), 37–61.
Pepperberg, I. M. (2007). Individual differences in grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus). Journal of Ornithology, 148(2), 161–168.
Pepperberg, I. M. (2012). Further evidence for addition and numerical competence by a grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus). Animal Cognition, 15(4), 711–717.
Pepperberg, I. M. (2013). Abstract concepts: data from a grey parrot. Behavioural Processes, 93, 82–90.
Pepperberg, I. M., & Carey, S. (2012). Grey parrot number acquisition: the inference of cardinal value from ordinal position on the numeral list. Cognition, 125, 219–232.
Pinker, S. (1994). The Language Instinct. New York: Harper Perennial.
Pinker, S., & Jackendoff, R. (2005). The faculty of language: what’s special about it? Cognition, 95(2), 201–236.
Psillos, S. (2006). The structure, the whole structre, and nothing but the structure? Philosophy of Science, 73, 560–570.
Quick, N. J., & Janik, V. M. (2012). Bottlenose dolphins exchange signature whistles when meeting at sea. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279(1738), 2539–2545.
Ramsey, F. (1978). Law and Causality. In D. Mellow (Ed.), Foundations: Essays in Philosophy, Logic, Mathematics and Economics (pp. 128–132). Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey: Humanities Press.
Resnik, M. (1982). Mathematics as a science of patterns: epistemology. Noûs, 16, 95–105.
Rugani, R., Fontanari, L., Simoni, E., Regolin, L., & Vallortigara, G. (2009). Arithmetic in newborn chicks. Proceedings: Biological Sciences, 276(1666), 2451–2460.
Rugani, R., Regolin, L., & Vallortigara, G. (2011). Summation of large numerousness by newborn chicks. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 1–8.
Savage-Rumbaugh, E. S., Murphy, J., Sevcik, R. A., Brakke, K. E., Williams, S. L., & Rumbaugh, D. M. (1993). Language Comprehension in Ape and Child. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 58(3).
Schusterman, R. (2008). Vocal Learning in Mammals with Special Emphasis on Pinnipeds. In The Evolution of Communicative Flrxibility: Complexity, Creativity, and Adaptability in Human and Animal Communication (pp. 41–70). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Seed, A., & Byrne, R. (2010). Animal tool-use. Current Biology, 20(23), R1032–R1039.
Seibt, J. (2003). Free Process Theory: Towards a Typology of Occurrings. In J. Seibt (Ed.), Process Theories: Crossdisciplinary Studies in Dynamic Categories (pp. 23–56). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Senghas, A. (2003). Intergenerational influence and ontogenetic development in the emergence of spatial grammar in nicaraguan sign language. Cognitive Development, 18(4), 511–531.
Shapiro, S. (1997). Philosophy of Mathematics: Structure and Ontology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shapiro, S. (2000). Thinking About Mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance (2nd ed.). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Subiaul, F., Romansky, K., Cantlon, J. F., Klein, T., & Terrace, H. (2007). Cognitive Imitation in 2-year-old Children (Homo sapiens): A Comparison with Rhesus Monkeys. Animal Cognition, 10(4), 369-375.
Suddendorf, T. (2013). Mental time travel: continuities and discontinuities. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(4), 151–152.
van de Waal, E., Borgeaud, C., & Whiten, A. (2013). Potent social learning and conformity shapre a wild primate’s foraging decisions. Science, 340, 483–485.
van Fraassen, B. C. (2008). Scientific Representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2006). Relevance Theory. In L. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 607–632). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Yartsev, M. M., & Ulanovsky, N. (2013). Representation of three-dimensional space in the hippocampus of flying bats. Science, 340, 367–372.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Thanks to Otávio Bueno, Bret Hackett, Doug Jesseph, and Alex Levine for discussions about many of the issues examined in this paper. I am especially thankful to Mark Bickhard, Keegan Shepherd, Liz Swan, and Mary Whitlock for providing substantive comments on an earlier draft.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Winters, A.M. The Evolutionary Relevance of Abstraction and Representation. Biosemiotics 7, 125–139 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-013-9197-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-013-9197-1