Evolingo: the nature of the language faculty

Marc D. Hauser

M. Piattelli-Palmarini, J. Uriagereka and P. Salaburu (Eds.)

Note: this is a transcript from a talk by M.D. Hauser

I want to begin by saying that much of what I will discuss today builds tremendously on
the shoulders of giants and couldn’t have been done if it hadn’t been for the thinking
and experimental work of people like Noam Chomsky, Randy Gallistel and Rochel
Gelman, who significantly inform what I’ll be telling you about. Today I want to
develop an idea of a new research path into the evolution of language, which I’ll call
“evolingo”, parasitizing the discipline known as “evo-devo”, and I’ll tell you a little
about what I think the label means. Then I want to give you a case example, some very
new, largely unpublished data on the quantifiers. Finally, what I’ll try to argue is that
there is really a new way of thinking about the evolution of language that is very
different from the earliest stages of working on this problem.
Definitionally, what I want to do is anchor thinking about this in terms of viewing
language as a mind-internal computational system designed for thought and often
externalized in communication. That is, language evolved for internal thought and
planning and only later was co-opted for communication, so this sets up a dissociation
between what we do with the internal computation as opposed to what the internal
computation actually evolved for. In a pair of papers that we published a couple of years
ago1, we defined the faculty of language in the broad sense (FLB) as including all the
mental processes that are both necessary and sufficient to support language. The reason
why we want to do it in that way is because there are numerous things internal to the
mind that will be involved in language processing, but that need not be specific to
language. For example, memory is involved in language processing, but it is not
specific to language. So it’s important to distinguish those features that are involved in
the process of language computation from those that are specific to it. That’s why we
developed the idea of the faculty of language in the narrow sense (FLN), a faculty with
two key components: 1) those mental processes that are unique to language, and 2)
those that are unique to humans. Therefore, it sets out a comparative phylogenetic
agenda in that we are looking both for what aspects are unique to humans, but also what
aspects are unique to language as a faculty.
Evolingo, then, is a new, mostly methodological, way of thinking about the evolution of
language, whose nature can be described in terms of the three core components that
have been talked about in the last couple of days — i.e., the system of computational
rules on the one hand, semantics or the conceptual intentional system, and the sensory-

1
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. Fitch, W.T., Hauser, M.D.,
Chomsky, N. (2005). The evolution of the language faculty: Clarifications and implications. Cognition,
97, 179-210.
motor or phonological system and their interfaces. What the evolingo approach then
puts forward is that we are looking for the study of mind-internal linguistic
computations, focusing on those capacities that are shared, meaning both in terms of
homologies (traits that have evolved through direct, common descent) as well as
homoplasies (traits that have evolved largely from convergence or independent
evolution, but arise due to responses to common problems), looking at those aspects that
are unique to humans and unique to language as a domain of knowledge.
The real change with the prior history of work on the evolution of language is that it
focused almost entirely on non-communicative competencies, using methods that tap
both spontaneous capacities as well as those that involve training. I want to make just
one quick point here, because I think some of the work that I’ve done in the past has
confused this. Much of the work in animal learning that has gone on in the past has
involved a particular kind of training methodology that, by its design, enables exquisite
control over the animal’s behavior. In contrast, much of the work that we have done in
the past ten or so years has departed, not intellectually, but I think methodologically
from prior approaches by looking at what animals do spontaneously, in the absence of
training. These are not competing methods, they’re complementary, and they are
important in part for something that Juan Uriagereka mentioned before. Juan described
the experiment that Tecumseh Fitch and I did as involving training, but that is explicitly
what we were moving away from. We did not train the animals through a process of
reward or punishment to show what kinds of patterns they can extract. We merely
exposed them, passively, in much the same way that studies of human infants proceed,
and that Lila Gleitman described the other day. We are trying to use very comparable
methods to those used with human infants so that if we find similar kinds of behaviors,
we can be more confident about not only the computation, but how it was acquired and
implemented. I’ll pick up on these points later in the talk.
So the two very important empirical questions that I’ll address in a moment are: 1) to
what extent are the conceptual representations that appear to uniquely enter into
linguistic computation built from non-linguistic resources; and 2) to what extent have
linguistic conceptual representations transformed in evolution and ontogeny some of
our ontological commitments? The reason why I think this is important, and the reason
why I think the evolingo change in approach has been important, is that almost all the
work at a phylogenetic level that has addressed questions of interest to linguists about
the nature of language, language structure and computation, has looked almost
exclusively at the communication of animals, either their natural communication or
what we can train them to do with sign languages or symbols. What it has generally
failed to do, except in the last few years, is to ask about the computational capacities
that may be seen in completely different domains and never externalized. This is why,
in my first paper with Noam and Tecumseh Fitch2, we made the analogy that some of
the computations that one sees in language may well appear in something like spatial
navigation — the integration of spatial information that Randy elegantly described in
his talk about the notion of landmarks and bearings. Those kinds of computations may
have some similarity to the kinds of computations we see in language.
A couple of examples of how I think the structure of the questions has changed in the
field, away from questions like “Can animals vocalize and refer to things in the world?”
“Do animals have any syntactic structures?” to other kinds of questions. I think in terms

2
Hauser, M.D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W.T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and
how does it evolve? Science, 298, 1569-1579.
of conceptual evolution there are two issues, one having to do with the nature of animal
concepts. And here I’ll just take the lead from Randy’s elegant work, and argue that in
general, the way that people in the field of animal cognition have thought about them is
exactly the way that Randy just described, i.e. as isomorphisms or relationships between
two distinct systems of representation. Critically, and as Randy described (I’m not
going to go through this, although interestingly we picked out the same terms), they
seem to be abstract, not necessarily anchored in the perceptual or sensory experiences
for things like number, space, time and mental states. Importantly, there seems to be
virtually no connection in animals, perhaps with the exception of honeybees (which is
why I asked that question), between the sensory-motor output of signaling and the
richness of the conceptual systems they have. Notice there is nothing remotely like a
word in animal communication. I take it to be the case that what is debated in the field,
and I think what should be of relevance to people working in language, are the
following issues: the details of the format and content of the representations in animals;
how the language faculty transforms the conceptual space; and lastly, whether there are
language-specific conceptual resources. And it’s really the latter question that I want to
address today.
A question that will be at least somewhat debated, perhaps in the corner where Randy,
Rochel and I sit, is what the non-linguistic quantificational systems are in animals and
humans. One system that certainly is not questioned is the one that Randy and Rochel
have worked on for many years, and is often called the analog magnitude system. This
is a system whose signature or definitional property is that it computes approximate
number estimation with no absolute limit on number, but with discrimination limited by
Weber ratios. There is abundant evidence for this in the animal world, shown by studies
that involve training animals, and studies that involve spontaneous methods. Such
studies are complementary in the sense that they both reveal the signature of the system
in animals like chimpanzees, rhesus monkeys, tamarins, lemurs, rats, pigeons and so
forth. A second system, which is perhaps more heatedly debated in terms of whether it
should count as something numerical is a system that some of us have called the
“parallel individuation system”, or the object file system. This system has a different
kind of signature. It seems to be very precise, but it is limited in terms of the numbers
that it is precise for — specifically in a range of 3 to 4. So discrimination is limited by
how many individuals can be tracked at the same time in parallel. Here as well, there is
evidence from some training studies and some spontaneous methods, in both human
adults and infants, as well as in primates.
I want to take you now to one of my labs, the beautiful island of Cayo Santiago, off the
coast of Puerto Rico, which is the sole location for 1,000 rhesus monkeys. What’s
beautiful about this island is that, in contrast to most studies of primates, this island has
a very large number of individuals, about a thousand at a given time. They are perfectly
habituated to our presence, allowing us to observe them at very close range, safely, and
carry out experiments with them in a naturalistic setting. What I want to tell you about
today is one kind of experiment that lends itself to asking about the capacity for
numerical quantification in a functionally significant, ecologically relevant foraging
task. Here is the basic nature of the design, which you’ll hear about over and over again
in the next 5-10 minutes. We find an animal who is by himself or herself; we place two
boxes in front of the animal; we show them they’re empty, and then we proceed to
lower objects into the boxes. In most cases, what we’re lowering are food objects that
we know they’re highly motivated to go find. In the typical experiment we’re asking
them, “Do you prefer the box with more food or the one with less food?” Since we can
assume that they are going to try to go for more food, the experiment should work.
So here’s the idea for the basic experiment, counterbalancing for all sorts of necessary
things. We load into the first box one apple followed by a second apple (the boxes are
opaque so the monkeys can’t see inside) and then we load one apple into the second
box; we walk away and let the animal choose. This is one trial per animal, we don’t
repeat the individuals, so we’re going to be comparing across conditions where every
condition has 20 - 24 different individuals. We don’t train them, we don’t even cue
them into what the task is until we walk away. We place the apples in the box, walk
away, and let them choose a box. When we do that, here are the results we get. If we
compare one piece of apple going into a box and nothing in the other, they prefer 1 vs.
0, 2 vs. 1, 3 vs. 2, and 4 vs. 3, but they fail to show a successful discrimination of 5 vs.
4, 6 vs. 4, 8 vs. 4, and 8 vs. 3. So although the ratios are favorable here relative to what
they can do with 2 vs. 1, they are not using ratios to make a discrimination. The
discrimination is falling out precisely at 4 vs. 3. They can do no more. So under these
conditions (no training, one trial per individual), this is the level of discrimination that
we find, and this pattern can not be explained by the analog magnitude system. It is,
however, entirely consistent with the signature of the parallel individuation system.
Now, let us turn to a conceptual domain that might appear to be privileged for language,
morpho-syntax in particular — i.e. the singular-plural distinction — and ask the
question whether the conceptual roots upon which language was constructed over
evolutionary time and in development built upon some conceptual primitives that may
be seen in nonlinguistic creatures and in prelinguistic human infants. The basic idea is
that if we have one cat, or we have two, or millions of cats, we form the following kind
of construction with a terminal –s [shown off-screen]. The result that opens the door to
the comparative angle comes from a recent study by Dave Barner, Susan Carey and
their colleagues.3 They presented infants with a version of the box-choice study I just
described for you with rhesus monkeys. When infants in the age range of 12-20 months
were tested, Barner and Carey found that subjects could discriminate 1 cracker from 2,
as well as 3 from 2, but they failed with 4 vs. 3, 2 vs. 4, and surprisingly, even 1 vs. 4.
As soon as the number of items going into one box exceeds 3, infants at this age fail the
discrimination task. Of interest is that at the age of around 22 months, when infants are
producing, in English, the singular-plural morphology, they now succeed on the 1 vs. 4
task. Barner and Carey explain these results by suggesting that the explicit formulation
of the singular-plural morphology, in terms of its representational structure, enables a
new form of numerical discrimination, specifically, one between singular and plural
entities. Therefore, in ontogeny we see a linguistic distinction first, and then a
conceptual distinction second. Now if this interpretation is correct, and numerical
discrimination of this kind depends on the singular-plural morphology, then of course
animals lacking this morphology will fail on a comparable task.
To test this hypothesis, I now want to run you through a series of experiments that ask
the following question. If we consider the two nonlinguistic systems that I’ve described,
the parallel individuation system, which is precise (less than 4 in rhesus monkeys), and
the analog magnitude system that is approximate but with no absolute limit, both will

3
Barner, D., Thalwitz, D., Wood, J., Yang, S., & Carey, S. (in press). On the relation between
the acquisition of singular-plural morpho-syntax and the conceptual distinction between one
and more than one. Developmental Science.
predict success at singular vs. plural, and for plural-plural as long as with favorable
ratios or fewer than 4 objects. So if both systems are operative, which we know they
are, then singular-plural should work fine and so should plural-plural as long as it has
these conditions. So we are back to the box-choice experiment, but we are going to do it
in a slightly different way. Now, rather than presenting the items one by one, we present
them as sets. So we show them 5 apples; those 5 apples go into the box all at once and
disappear; next we show them 1 apple and this one apple disappears into the box; and
then we allow subjects to approach and chose one box. What we do therefore is present
plural sets, presented all at once as opposed to presenting individuals, and we
counterbalance the order in which they go into the boxes. We test for singular-plural (1
vs. 2 and 1 vs. 5), as well as plural-plural (2 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 5). Now recall that if either
the system of parallel individuation or analog magnitudes is operative, that subjects will
be able to discriminate values of 4 or less.
What we find in terms of the proportion of subjects picking the larger number of
objects, in this case apples, is success on 1 vs. 2 and 1 vs. 5. Now this is an
uninformative result, at least for analog magnitude or set-based quantification, because
both could work. But here is where it gets interesting: subjects fail at 2 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 5.
These results cannot be explained on the basis of the analog magnitude system, and
certainly the 2 vs. 4 failure cannot be explained on the basis of parallel individuation.
How, then, can we explain these data? These data do not force a rejection of the systems
for parallel individuation or analog magnitude. Rather, they simply indicate that under
the testing conditions carried out, these mechanisms are not recruited or expressed.
Why?
Let’s now run the same exact experiment, but carry it out as individuals going into the
box. For example, we show them five apples going into a box one at a time, followed
by two apples going into another box one at a time. So now it is still 5 vs. 2, but this
time presented as individuals as opposed to sets. They succeed again on 1 vs. 2, 1 vs. 5
and 2 vs. 4, but they fail on 2 vs. 5. Remember that this pattern is consistent with the
parallel individuation system, but inconsistent with analog magnitude. We therefore
recover the pattern of results obtained in the original experiment, a pattern that is
entirely consistent with the system of parallel individuation. But we can do better. We
can actually turn the system on and off.
If we start out with individual apples, but we load them in as sets, what happens? Here,
subjects succeed on 1 vs. 2 and 1 vs. 5, but they fail on 2 vs. 4, and 2 vs. 5. In other
words, when sets go in last, they are back to set-based quantification, even though they
see them individuated. If we start out with sets, but we load them in as individuals, now
they succeed on 1 vs. 2, 1 vs. 5, and 2 vs. 4, but they fail on 2 vs. 5. In other words,
what is driving the system is the set-based quantificational system. If they see objects as
sets as the last thing, then they use a set-based system to quantify which has more; if
they see things going in as individuals, then discrimination is based on the system of
parallel individuation.
What I would like to argue, therefore, is that rhesus monkeys seem to be making a
conceptual distinction between singular and plural. The results I have presented today
cannot be explained by the currently available mechanisms that have been discussed,
either analog magnitude or parallel individuation. Again, this is not to reject those
mechanisms as viable mechanisms for quantification, but they simply cannot account
for the pattern of data we see today. Therefore, as a working hypothesis, what I would
like to argue is that this system of set-based quantification is part of the faculty of
language in the broad sense (FLB), but it is not something specific to language and is
not therefore part of FLN.
Now I move to a second line of experiments that plays on the mass-count distinction, a
topic of considerable interest to both semanticists and syntacticians. The question is:
could this distinction, and its ontological commitments, be rooted in a non-linguistic
conceptual format, and thus, present in other animals? We have count nouns, things that
can be enumerated (cup, shovel, apple), and we have mass nouns, things that cannot be
enumerated unless there is a preceding classifier or packaging term (e.g. not *waters,
but cups of water, not *sands but piles of sand), so we don’t say e.g. *3 sands. The
question is: does this kind of distinction, which appears in natural languages (not all, but
many), translate into conceptual resources that are non-linguistic, present early in
evolution and ontogeny? Consider the experiments on enumeration in human infants,
and specifically the classic studies by Karen Wynn that were done initially with solid
objects (e.g., Mickey Mouse dolls), using the violation-of-expectancy looking time
method that Lila mentioned yesterday in her talk. Wynn’s results, and the many
replications that followed, show that if you place one object behind a screen followed
by a second one, and you pull the screen away, babies will look longer at violations of
those numbers. So if you place 2 objects behind the screen but then reveal 1 or 3, babies
look longer at these outcomes than at an outcome of 2. But if you run the exact same
experiment, but pour sand (one pour of sand followed by a second pour of sand) and
reveal 1, 2 or 3 piles of sand, babies do not look longer at these different outcomes. This
suggests that in order for enumeration to proceed, infants require individuals, discrete
items that can be enumerated. There is something fundamentally different between solid
objects and non-solid masses.
To address the evolutionary or phylogenetic aspect of this problem, we ran a similar
experiment, using the box-choice experiment I described earlier. To motivate the
animals, we used small pieces of carrot, poured out of a bucket. We fill up beakers with
carrot pieces and then pour them into the opaque buckets, walk away, and give the
monkeys a choice between two buckets that have different amounts of carrot pieces. We
present 2 vs. 1, 3 vs. 2 and so forth, pouring pieces of carrot out f a beaker. The
monkeys pick 2 vs. 1 beaker pours, 3 vs. 2, and 4 vs. 3, but they fail at 5 vs. 4 and 6 vs.
3. This is exactly the pattern of results I presented for objects, but now they are carrying
out the computation over pouring of quantities or masses of carrot pieces. Now, this
confounds many things including volume, so can we control for these factors and see if
they are actually enumerating. To find out we pour 1 big quantity of carrot pieces vs. 2
medium ones, where volume is now equated but the actions are different. Here they
pick 2 medium over 1 big, so now quantity is being taken over by the number of actual
pours. If we show them the identical number of actions, 1 vs. 1, but where one beaker is
a full volume of carrot pieces and one is a small volume, they pick the one big over
small, showing they’re paying attention to the volume. Regarding all the previous
conditions, they could actually see the amount of carrot pieces in the beaker, because
the beaker was transparent, but if we make it opaque so they actually have to attend to
what is falling out of the beaker, they still pick 2 vs. 1. So they are actually tracking the
amount of stuff falling out of the beaker. Together, these results suggest that rhesus are
computing numerosities over solid and non-solid entities, tapping in these conditions,
the system of parallel individuation. These patterns stand in contrast to those presented
thus far for infants, where the enumerative capacities tapped for objects falls apart for
masses.
Let me now end by returning to the questions I posed at the beginning. First, to what
extent are the conceptual representations that appear to uniquely enter into linguistic
computation built from non-linguistic resources? This question is, to me, only
beginning to be addressed, but the problem of quantifiers and their representational
format, seems ideally suited for further exploration. Can we get to the point where we
can ask about whether animals have some notion of many vs. all or some? Are the kinds
of logical quantifiers that enter into language built upon conceptual resources that have
a much more ancient evolutionary trajectory? We are only beginning to ask questions
such as this, and we have few answers. Secondly, to what extent have linguistic
conceptual representations transformed in evolution and ontogeny our ontological
commitments? The speculation I’d like to leave you with is this. If you consider the
results I just presented, involving rhesus monkeys enumerating carrot pieces, and you
contrast these with the baby results on pouring sand, I think there is an interesting
proposal with respect to the relationship between language and ontological
commitments. Specifically, although infants do not yet have, in their production or
comprehension, anything like a mass-count distinction, the evolution of that distinction
within language has actually transformed our ontological commitments such that infants
see the world differently than do rhesus monkeys, who are happily enumerating masses
in a way that at least babies seem not to. In other words, humans uniquely evolved the
mass-count distinction as a parametric setting, initially set as a default, but then
modifiable by the local language, leading some natural languages to make the
distinction, but only optionally.
Thank you very much.