Skip to main content
Log in

Specifically Human: Going Beyond Perceptual Syntax

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biosemiotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to help refine the definition of humans as “linguistic animals” in light of a comparative approach on nonhuman animals’ cognitive systems. As Uexküll & Kriszat (1934/1992) have theorized, the epistemic access to each species-specific environment (Umwelt) is driven by different biocognitive processes. Within this conceptual framework, I identify the salient cognitive process that distinguishes each species typical perception of the world as the faculty of language meant in the following operational definition: the ability to connect different elements according to structural rules. In order to draw some conclusions about humans’ specific faculty of language, I review different empirical studies on nonhuman animals’ ability to recognize formal patterns of tokens. I suggest that what differentiates human language from other animals’ cognitive systems is the ability to categorize the units of a pattern, going beyond its perceptual aspects. In fact, humans are the only species known to be able to combine semantic units within a network of combinatorial logical relationships (Deacon 1997) that can be linked to the state of affairs in the external world (Wittgenstein 1922). I assume that this ability is the core cognitive process underlying a) the capacity to speak (or to reason) in verbal propositions and b) the general human faculty of language expressed, for instance, in the ability to draw visual conceptual maps or to compute mathematical expressions. In light of these considerations, I conclude providing some research questions that could lead to a more detailed comparative exploration of the faculty of language.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Hereafter I will italicize the terms “syntax” and “syntactic” when used according to this specified etymological sense.

  2. Here the term “object” is used in a broad sense, referring to abstract or concrete entities, as well as to actions, subjects, etc.

  3. The logical connections are those expressed both through morpho-syntactic links and logical connectors.

References

  • Abe, K., & Watanabe, D. (2011). Songbirds possess the spontaneous ability to discriminate syntactic rules. Nature Neuroscience, 14(2011), 1067–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle (2004). Metaphysics. (H. Lawson-Tancred, Trans.) England: Penguin Classics. (Original work ≈ 350 b.C.).

  • Berwick, R. C., Okanoya, K., Beckers, G. J. L., & Bolhuis, J. (2011). Songs to syntax: the linguistics of birdsong. Trends in Cognitive Science, 159, 113–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carapezza, M. (2006). Uexküll, la nozione di Umwelt e il parlare di animali. Annali del dipartimento di Filosofia, Storia e Critica dei Saperi, Università di Palermo, 47–60.

  • Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (1999). Toward a connectionist model of recursion in human linguistic performance. Cognitive Science, 23, 157–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N., Three models for the description of language, Information Theory, 1956.

  • Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corballis, M. C. (2007). Recursion, language, and starlings. Cognitive Science, 31, 697–704.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Deacon, T. W. (1997). The symbolic species. The coevolution of language and the brain. New York: Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitch, W. T., & Hauser, M. D. (2004). Computational constraints on syntactic processing in a nonhuman primate. Science, 303, 377–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fitch, W. T. (2010). Three meanings of “recursion”: key distinctions for biolinguistics. In R. K. Larson, V. Deprez, & H. Yamakido (Eds.), The evolution of human language: biolinguistic perspectives (pp. 73–90). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fitch, W. T., & Friederici, A. D. (2012). Artificial grammar learning meets formal language theory: an overview. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 367, 1933–1955.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitch, W. T., Friederici, A. D., & Hagoort, P. (2012). Pattern Perception and computational complexity: an introduction to the special issue. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 367, 1925–1932.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, T. Q., Fenn, K. M., Margoliash, D., & Nusbaum, H. C. (2006). Recursive syntactic pattern learning by songbirds. Nature, 440, 1204–207.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, M. D., Fitch, W. T., & Chomsky, N. (2002). The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298, 1569–79.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lo Piparo, F. (1998). Il mondo, le specie animali e il linguaggio. La teoria zoocognitiva di Wittgenstein. In M. Carenini & M. Matteuzzi (Eds.), Percezione, Linguaggio, Coscienza. Saggi di filosofia della mente (pp. 183–202). Macerata: Quodlibet.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, T. J., Hauser, M. D., & Fitch, W. T. (2005). Using mathematical models of language experimentally. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 284–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Okanoya, K. (2004). Song syntax in Bengalese Finches: proximate and ultimate analyses. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 14, 297–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uexküll, J. von e G. Kriszat (1992). A stroll through the worlds of animals and men: A picture book of invisible worlds. Semiotica, 89(4). doi:10.1515/semi.1992.89.4.319.

  • Van Heijningen, C. A., De Visser, J., Zuidema, W., & Ten Cate, C. (2009). Simple rules can explain discrimination of putative recursive syntactic structures by a songbird species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(48), 20538–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Tractatus logico-philosophicus. (F. P. Ogden & C. K. Ramsey, Trans.). Oxford, England: Routledge and Kegan Paul. (Original work published 1921).

Download references

Acknowledgments

I thank Marco Carapezza, Franco Lo Piparo and W. Tecumseh Fitch for their invaluable help in thinking through the concepts explained in the manuscript, and for encouraging my research. Funding was provided by the University of Palermo and by a European Research Council Advanced Grant SOMACCA (No. 230604) awarded to W. T. Fitch. The funders had no role in the decision to publish or prepare the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Piera Filippi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Filippi, P. Specifically Human: Going Beyond Perceptual Syntax. Biosemiotics 7, 111–123 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-013-9187-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-013-9187-3

Keywords

Navigation