Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-12T05:21:12.367Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Evolution of affective and linguistic disambiguation under social eavesdropping pressures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 December 2014

Kevin B. Clark*
Affiliation:
Research and Development Service, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA 90073. kbclarkphd@yahoo.comwww.linkedin.com/pub/kevin-clark/58/67/19a Complex Biological Systems Alliance, North Andover, MA 01845. kevin.clark@cbsaimtt.com

Abstract

Contradicting new dual-pathway models of language evolution, cortico-striatal-thalamic circuitry disambiguate uncertainties in affective prosody and propositional linguistic content of language production and comprehension, predictably setting limits on useful complexity of articulate phonic and/or signed speech. Such limits likely evolved to ensure public information is discriminated by intended communicants and safeguarded against the ecological pressures of social eavesdropping within and across phylogenetic boundaries.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

The basal ganglia contribute to acquisition, planning, initiation, and execution of vocal and gestural communication skills in primates, birds, and other animals. Consistent with dual-pathway models of language evolution, Ackermann et al. in the target article now speculate the basal ganglia also integrate and modulate (continuous or analog) affective prosody of vocalizations and gesticulations with little to no influence over (discrete or digital) propositional linguistic content of human phonetic and, presumably, signed speech. The authors cite comparative clinical and basic research findings to support their claim that high-level linguistic processing only occurs in phylogenetically newer brain systems, while omitting the recent small, but credible, neuroimaging literature which contradicts this assertion and implicates human cortico-striatal-thalamic circuitry in disambiguating lexical (Chenery et al. Reference Chenery, Angwin and Copeland2008; Copeland Reference Copeland2003), grammatical (Mestres-Missé et al. Reference Mestres-Missé, Turner and Friederici2012), and semantic (Ketteler et al. Reference Ketteler, Kastrau, Vohn and Huber2008; Marques et al. Reference Marques, Canessa and Cappa2009; Wittforth et al. Reference Wittforth, Schröder, Schardt, Dengler, Heinze and Kotz2010) uncertainties in perceived language. Failure to assimilate roles of the basal ganglia in both language production and comprehension seriously weakens the conceptual validity and power of Ackermann et al.'s treatise on selective fitness of advancing animal taxa to evolve increasingly sophisticated dual-pathway communication systems for affective and propositional information exchange.

Evolutionarily older functions of cortico-striatal-thalamic loops to generate and filter variances in affective prosody of non- and/or protolinguistic species-typical/atypical communications, as advocated by Ackermann et al., seem to have eventually and adaptively converged to help perform similar operations on propositional linguistic content, as evidenced in later human language use. Such (lateralized) developments in cortico-striatal-thalamic processing necessarily first enabled language-deficient nonhuman animals to better articulate innate and/or learned primitive communications (e.g., recombinant hierarchical call or song sequences with precise, intricate spectral patterns) and, therefore, to more successfully transmit meanings or labels of both continuously and discretely structured information for receiver understanding (Arnold & Zuberbühler Reference Arnold and Zuberbühler2006; Berwick et al. Reference Berwick, Okanoya, Beckers and Bolhuis2011; Bolhuis et al. Reference Bolhuis, Okanoya and Skarff2010; Doupe et al. Reference Doupe, Perkel, Reiner and Stern2005; Ouattara et al. Reference Ouattara, Lemasson and Zuberbühler2009; Zuberbühler Reference Zuberbühler2000a; Zuberbühler et al. Reference Zuberbühler, Cheney and Seyfarth1999). Despite lack of direct empirical proof, one can further safely reason that homologous or analogous neuromechanisms for disambiguating communication content arose from ecological forces that continue to drive changes in production, comprehension, and privatization of public vocal and gestural communications ancestral to and descendent from early hominin language innovations.

Capacities of cortico-striatal-thalamic pathways to regulate variability in communication production and comprehension likely coevolved with animal abilities to encrypt and decrypt sensitive public information at risk of corruption or interception from social eavesdroppers. Evolution conserved social eavesdropping across phylogeny, whereby unintended observers breach information security of communicating parties in attempts to gain survival and/or reproductive advantages (Clark Reference Clark2010; Reference Clark2013a; Reference Clark and Clark2013b; in press; Dabelsteen Reference Dabelsteen2004; Dall Reference Dall2005; Danchin et al. Reference Danchin, Giraldeau, Valone and Wagner2004; Joint Reference Joint2006; Peake & McGregor Reference Peake and McGregor2004; Seyfarth & Cheney Reference Seyfarth and Cheney2010; Stowe et al. Reference Stowe, Turlings, Loughrin, Lewis and Tumlinson1995). Cortico-striatal-thalamic circuitry, via involvement in automatic and/or volitional processing of affective and propositional content variability, predictably sets limits on useful complexity of naturally communicated information. These constraints determine probabilities that public exchanges may be discriminated by intended observers and safeguarded against social eavesdroppers. When communication complexity processed by phylogenetically or culturally distant unintended observers far subtends upper complexity limits for information processed over superior disambiguation neuromechanisms of intended observers, information content of public messages and replies will remain protected from eavesdropping. Complexity scaling of communication production and comprehension extends along the continuum of signals to protolanguage to language and figures to be an essential evolutionary strategy to secure communications within and across taxonomic boundaries.

One may begin to appreciate evolved neurobiological barriers to social eavesdropping by enlisting examples of dual-pathway systems for birdsong and human speech given by Ackermann et al. The cortico-striatal-thalamic circuitry of birds and humans effect complexity scaling through two broad, related domains of complexity – combinatorial and computational complexity – each having particular significance for communication production and comprehension as well as for other aspects of cognition (Clark Reference Clark and Floares2012). Classical combinatorial complexity differentiates levels of comparative language hierarchies and communication repertoires (Changizi Reference Changizi2001; Chomsky Reference Chomsky1956; Reference Chomsky1966; McNaughton & Papert Reference McNaughton and Papert1971), where complexity is proportional to number of discrete information elements, length of composite information sequences, and structure of recursive information patterns. Useful complexity under these conditions is defined by strictly ordered inclusive sets of information capable of being both generated and recognized with certain classical computational models, machines, or grammar rules emulating properties of cortico-striatal-thalamic loops. Three fundamental features of all computational complexity classes may be varied – computational resources (e.g., time, space), problem type to be solved (e.g., optimization or decision problem, language production and comprehension), and computational model to be employed (e.g., deterministic Turing Machine, probabilistic Turing Machine, quantum computer) (Clark Reference Clark and Floares2012). Disparities in classical communication complexities between birds and humans reveal dissociations for each computational feature and, consequently, for communication disambiguation involving affective prosodic or propositional information content (Berwick et al. Reference Berwick, Okanoya, Beckers and Bolhuis2011). As disparities narrow and computational features progressively overlap, threats of eavesdropping on public information should escalate for superior communicants, in this case humans.

More instructive scenarios, and ones that help identify flaws in purely classical complexity approaches toward language evolution, concern competing, closely related animals, such as bird or primate subspecies, with very similar communication complexities. Pressures of social eavesdropping rise when quality and/or quantity of niche resources dwindle and acquired public information facilitates selection and acquisition of preferred life necessities shared by conspecifics. Subspecies communication adaptations, including genetically and/or culturally acquired vocal dialects and behavioral modifications (Dabelsteen Reference Dabelsteen2004; Danchin et al. Reference Danchin, Giraldeau, Valone and Wagner2004) processed via cortico-striatal-thalamic pathways, increase degrees of freedom for classical information computation, further privatizing public information readily comprehended by conspecifics. However, when disambiguation demands for processing linguistic variations superposed (or nearing maximal entanglement) with affective prosodic variations grow exponentially with information input size, privatization becomes governed by quantum computational models involving the entropic uncertainty principle for indistinguishable communications content (Clark Reference Clark and Floares2012; in press; Nielsen & Chuang Reference Nielsen and Chuang2000). This principle imposes thresholds above which eavesdroppers with inferior, missing, or over-allocated communication disambiguation neuromechanisms cannot definitely and simultaneously decrypt partite affective and linguistic content of public information. However, intended communicants may violate the principle by enhancing public information security through privy subspecies-specific communication and memory specializations (cf. Bennett et al. Reference Bennett, Brassard, Crépeau, Jozsa, Peres and Wootters1993; Berta et al. Reference Berta, Christandl, Colbeck, Renes and Renner2010).

References

Arnold, K. & Zuberbühler, K. (2006) Semantic combinations in primate calls. Nature 441(7091):303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bennett, C. H., Brassard, G., Crépeau, C., Jozsa, R., Peres, A. & Wootters, W. (1993) Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and EPR channels. Physical Review Letters 70:1895–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berta, M., Christandl, M., Colbeck, R., Renes, J. M. & Renner, R. (2010) The uncertainty principle in the presence of quantum memory. Nature Physics 6:659–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berwick, R. C., Okanoya, K., Beckers, G. J. L. & Bolhuis, J. J. (2011) Songs to syntax: The linguistics of birdsong. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 15(3):113–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bolhuis, J. J., Okanoya, K. & Skarff, C. (2010) Twitter evolution: Converging mechanisms in birdsong and human speech. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 11(11):747–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Changizi, M. A. (2001) Universal scaling laws for hierarchical complexity in languages, organisms, behaviors and other combinatorial systems. Journal of Theoretical Biology 211(3):277–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chenery, H. J., Angwin, A. J. & Copeland, D. A. (2008) The basal circuits, dopamine, and ambiguous word processing: A neurobiological account of priming studies in Parkinson's disease. Journal of International Neuropsychology Society 14(3):351–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chomsky, N. (1956) Three models for the description of language. IRE Transactions on Information Theory 2:113–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1966) Cartesian linguistics: A chapter in the history of rationalist thought. Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Clark, K. B. (2010) On classical and quantum error-correction in ciliate mate selection. Communicative & Integrative Biology 3(4):374–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, K. B. (2012) A statistical mechanics definition of insight. In: Computational intelligence, ed. Floares, A. G., pp. 139–62. Nova Science.Google Scholar
Clark, K. B. (2013a) Ciliates learn to diagnose and correct classical error syndromes in mating strategies. Frontiers in Microbiology 4:229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, K. B. (2013b) The mating judgments of microbes. In: Social learning theory: Phylogenetic considerations across animal, plant, and microbial taxa, ed. Clark, K. B., pp. 173200. Nova Science.Google Scholar
Clark, K. B. (in press) Entropic uncertainty of ciliate behavioral signals limits eavesdropping by mating rivals and predators. Frontiers in Microbiology.Google Scholar
Copeland, D. (2003) The basal ganglia and semantic engagement: Potential insights from semantic priming in individuals with subcortical vascular lesions, Parkinson's disease, and cortical lesions. Journal of International Neuropsychology Society 9(7):1041–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dabelsteen, T. (2004) Strategies that facilitate or counter eavesdropping on vocal interactions in songbirds. Anais de Academia Brasileirade Ciências 76(2):274–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dall, S. R. X. (2005) Information and its use by animals in evolutionary ecology. Trends in Ecological Evolution 20(4):187–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Danchin, E., Giraldeau, L. A., Valone, T. J. & Wagner, R. H. (2004) Public information: From nosy neighbours to cultural evolution. Science 305(5683):487–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doupe, A. J., Perkel, D. J., Reiner, A. & Stern, E. A. (2005) Birdbrains could teach basal ganglia research a new song. Trends in Neurosciences 28(7):353–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joint, I. (2006) Bacterial conversations: Talking, listening and eavesdropping. A NERC Discussion Meeting held at the Royal Society on 7 December 2005. Journal of the Royal Society Interface 3(8):459–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ketteler, D., Kastrau, F., Vohn, R. & Huber, W. (2008) The subcortical role of language processing. High level linguistic features such as ambiguity-resolution and the human brain: An fMRI study. NeuroImage 39(4):20022009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marques, J. F., Canessa, N. & Cappa, S. (2009) Neural differences in the processing of true and false sentences: Insights into the nature of “truth” in language comprehension. Cortex 45(6):759–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNaughton, R. & Papert, S. (1971) Counter-free Automata. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mestres-Missé, A., Turner, R. & Friederici, A. D. (2012) An anterior–posterior gradient of cognitive control within the dorsomedial striatum. NeuroImage 62(1):4147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nielsen, M. A. & Chuang, I. L. (2000) Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ouattara, K., Lemasson, A. & Zuberbühler, K. (2009) Campbell's monkeys concatenate vocalizations into context-specific call sequences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106(51): 22026–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peake, T. M. & McGregor, P. K. (2004) Information and aggression in fishes. Learning and Behavior 32(1):114–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seyfarth, R. M. & Cheney, D. L. (2010) Production, usage, and comprehension in animal vocalizations. Brain and Language 115(1):92100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stowe, M. K., Turlings, T. C., Loughrin, J. H., Lewis, W. J. & Tumlinson, J. H. (1995) The chemistry of eavesdropping, alarm, and deceit. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 92(1):2328.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wittforth, M., Schröder, C., Schardt, D. M., Dengler, R., Heinze, H. J. & Kotz, S. A. (2010) On emotional conflict: Interference resolution of happy and angry prosody reveals valence-specific effects. Cerebral Cortex 20(2):383–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuberbühler, K. (2000a) Causal cognition in a nonhuman primate: Field playback experiments with Diana monkeys. Cognition 76(3):195207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuberbühler, K., Cheney, D. L. & Seyfarth, R. M. (1999) Conceptual semantics in a nonhuman primate. Journal of Comparative Psychology 113:3342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar