OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience
Advanced Search
Topics in cognitive science
04, 2020;12 (2): 727-743.

Writing, Graphic Codes, and Asynchronous Communication.

Olivier Morin, Piers Kelly, James Winters
Author Information
  1. Olivier Morin: Minds and Traditions Research Group, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History.
  2. Piers Kelly: Minds and Traditions Research Group, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History.
  3. James Winters: Minds and Traditions Research Group, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History.
PMID: 30306732 DOI: 10.1111/tops.12386

Abstract

We present a theoretical framework bearing on the evolution of written communication. We analyze writing as a special kind of graphic code. Like languages, graphic codes consist of stable, conventional mappings between symbols and meanings, but (unlike spoken or signed languages) their symbols consist of enduring images. This gives them the unique capacity to transmit information in one go across time and space. Yet this capacity usually remains quite unexploited, because most graphic codes are insufficiently informative. They may only be used for mnemonic purposes or as props for oral communication in real-time encounters. Writing systems, unlike other graphic codes, work by encoding a natural language. This allows them to support asynchronous communication in a more powerful and versatile way than any other graphic code. Yet, writing systems will not automatically unlock the capacity to communicate asynchronously. We argue that this capacity is a rarity in non-literate societies, and not so frequent even in literate ones. Asynchronous communication is intrinsically inefficient because asynchrony constrains the amount of information that the interlocutors share and limits possibilities for repair. This would explain why synchronous, face-to-face communication always fosters the development of sophisticated codes (natural languages), but similar codes for asynchronous communication evolve with more difficulties. It also implies that writing cannot have evolved, at first, for supporting asynchronous communication.

Keywords

Communication Cultural evolution Literacy Pragmatics Repair Writing

References

  1. Baines, J. (1983). Literacy and ancient egyptian society. Man, 18(3), 572-599.
  2. Baines, J. (2007). Visual and written culture in ancient Egypt. New York: Oxford University Press.
  3. Basso, K. (1990). Western Apache language and culture. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Available at http://archive.org/details/rosettaproject_apw_ortho-1. Accessed January 8, 2018.
  4. Battestini, S. (2006). L’écriture nsibidi de la Cross River Region (Nigeria). In S. Battestini (Ed.), De l’écrit africain à l'oral: Le phénomène graphique africain (pp. 245-262). Paris: L'Harmattan.
  5. Bloch, M. (1997). How we think they think: Anthropological approaches ot cognition, memory and literacy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
  6. Blokpoel, M., van Kesteren, M., Stolk, A., Haselager, P., Toni, I., & Van Rooij, I. (2012). Recipient design in human communication: simple heuristics or perspective taking? Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6(253), 1-15.
  7. Boltz, W. G. (1993). The origin and early development of the Chinese writing system. New Haven, CT: Amer Oriental Society.
  8. Brennan, S. E. (2005). How conversation is shaped by visual and spoken evidence. In J. C. Trueswell & M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Approaches to studying world-situated language use (pp. 95-129). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  9. Brennan, S. E., & Hanna, J. E. (2009). Partner-specific adaptation in dialog. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(2), 274-291.
  10. Brokaw, G. (2010). A history of the Khipu (1st ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  11. Chafe, W., & Tannen, D. (1987). The relation between written and spoken language. Annual Review of Anthropology, 16, 383-407.
  12. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  13. Clark, H. H., & Carlson, T. (1981). Context for comprehension. Attention and Performance IX (pp. 313-330). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  14. Conklin, W. J. (2002). A Khipu information string theory. Narrative Threads: Accounting and Recounting in Andean Khipu (pp. 53-87). Austin: University of Texas Press.
  15. Coulmas, F. (2003). Writing systems: An introduction to their linguistic analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  16. DeFrancis, J. (1989). Visible speech: The diverse oneness of writing systems. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
  17. Déléage, P. (2012). Transmission et stabilisation des chants rituels. L'Homme, 203-204, 103-137.
  18. Dingemanse, M., Roberts, S. G., Baranova, J., Blythe, J., Drew, P., Floyd, S., … Enfield, N. J. (2015). Universal principles in the repair of communication problems. PLoS ONE, 10(9), e0136100.
  19. Galati, A., & Brennan, S. E. (2010). Attenuating information in spoken communication: For the speaker, or for the addressee? Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 35-51.
  20. Gerwing, J., & Bavelas, J. (2004). Linguistic influences on gesture's form. Gesture, 4(2), 157-195.
  21. Glassner, J.-J. (2000). Ecrire à Sumer : l'invention du cunéiforme. Paris: Seuil.
  22. Green, J. (2007). Drawn from the ground: Sound, sign and inscription in Central Australian sand stories. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  23. Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  24. Halverson, J. (1992). Goody and the implosion of the literacy thesis. Man, 27(2), 301-317.
  25. Hanna, J. E., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Trueswell, J. C. (2003). The effects of common ground and perspective on domains of referential interpretation. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(1), 43-61.
  26. Havelock, E. A. (1977). The preliteracy of the greeks. New Literary History, 8(3), 369-391.
  27. Holler, J., & Stevens, R. (2007). The effect of common ground on how speakers use gesture and speech to represent size information. Journal of language and social psychology, 26(1), 4-27.
  28. Holler, J., & Wilkin, K. (2009). Communicating common ground: How mutually shared knowledge influences speech and gesture in a narrative task. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(2), 267-289.
  29. Horton, W. S., & Gerrig, R. J. (2005). The impact of memory demands on audience design during language production. Cognition, 96(2), 127-142.
  30. Houston, S. D. (1994). Literacy among the Pre-Columbian Maya: A comparative perspective. In E. Hill Boone & W. Mignolo (Eds.), Writing without words: Alternative literacies in mesoamerica and the andes. (pp. 27-50). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
  31. Houston, S. D. (2004a). The archaeology of communication technologies. Annual Review of Anthropology, 33, 223-250.
  32. Houston, S. D. (2004b). The First Writing: Script Invention as History and Process. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  33. Howitt, A. W. (1889). Notes on Australian message sticks and messengers. The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 18, 314-332.
  34. Huettig, F., & Mishra, R. K. (2014). How literacy acquisition affects the illiterate mind - a critical examination of theories and evidence. Language and Linguistics Compass, 8(10), 401-427.
  35. Isaacs, E. A., & Clark, H. H. (1987). References in conversation between experts and novices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116(1), 26-37.
  36. Keysar, B., Barr, D. J., Balin, J. A., & Paek, T. S. (1998). Definite reference and mutual knowledge: Process models of common ground in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(1), 1-20.
  37. Kittay, J. (1991). Thinking through literacies. In D. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), Literacy and orality. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  38. Krauss, R. M., & Fussell, S. R. (1991). Perspective-taking in communication: Representations of others’ knowledge in reference. Social Cognition, 9(1), 2-24.
  39. Levinson, S. (2000). Pragmatics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  40. Lumholtz, C. (1889). Among cannibals: An account of four years’ travels in Australia and of camp life with the aborigines of Queensland. New York: C. Scribner's Co.
  41. Lupyan, G., & Dale, R. (2016). Why are there different languages? The role of adaptation in linguistic diversity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(9), 649-660.
  42. Lurie, D. B. (2006). Language, writing, and disciplinarity in the Critique of the “Ideographic Myth”: Some proleptical remarks. Language & Communication, 26(3), 250-269.
  43. Mallery, G., & Ethnology, S. I. B. of A. (1886). Pictographs of the North American Indians: A preliminary paper. Washington, DC: Govt. Printing Office.
  44. Matsunaga, S. (1996). The linguistic nature of kanji reexamined: Do kanji represent only meanings? The Journal of the Association of Teachers of Japanese, 30(2), 1-22.
  45. McCawley, J. D. (1992). Linguistic aspects of musical and mathematical notation. In P. Downing, S. D. Lima, & M. Noonan (Eds.), The linguistics of literacy (pp. 169-190). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  46. Menary, R. (2007). Writing as thinking. Language Sciences, 29(5), 621-632.
  47. Morphy, H. (1999). Encoding the dreaming - A theoretical framework for the analysis of representational processes in Australian aboriginal art. Australian Archaeology, 49, 13-22.
  48. Morris, I. (2014). The measure of civilization: How social development decides the fate of nations (New ed). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  49. Mota, N. B., Pinheiro, S., Sigman, M., Fernández Slezak, D., Cecchi, G., Copelli, M., & Ribeiro, S. (2016). The ontogeny of discourse structure mimics the development of literature. ArXiv.
  50. Narasimhan, R. (1991). Literady: Its characterisation and implications. In D. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), Literacy and orality (pp. 177-197). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  51. Okrent, A. (2010). In the land of invented languages: Adventures in linguistic creativity, madness, and genius. New York: Spiegel & Grau.
  52. Olson, D. (1991). Literacy as metalinguistic activity. In D. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), Literacy and orality. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  53. Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and literacy. The technologizing of the world. London: Routledge.
  54. Overmann, K. A. (2016). Beyond writing: The development of literacy in the ancient near east. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 26(2), 285-303.
  55. Partee, B. (1994). Lexical semantics and compositionality. In L. Gleitman, D. N. Osherson & M. Liberman (Eds.), Invitation to cognitive science (Vol. 1) (pp. 311-358). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  56. Pastoureau, M. (2007). Traité d'héraldique (5th ed.) Paris: Editions A & J Picard.
  57. Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(04), 329-347.
  58. Robb, K. (1994). Literacy and Paideia in ancient Greece. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  59. Saenger, P. (1997). Space between words: The origins of silent reading. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  60. Sampson, G. (1985). Writing systems: A linguistic introduction. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  61. Schmandt-Besserat, D. (1997). How writing came about (Abridged ed). Austin: University of Texas Press.
  62. Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1973). Cognitive consequences of formal and informal education. Science, 182(4112), 553-559.
  63. Severi, C. (2007). Le principe de la chimère. Paris: AEsthetica.
  64. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1982). Mutual knowledge and relevance in theories of comprehension. In N. Smith (Ed.), Mutual knowledge (pp. 61-85). London: Academic Press.
  65. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
  66. Tambiah, S. J. (1968). The magical power of words. Man, 3(2), 175-208.
  67. Thurston, W. R. (1987). Processes of change in the languages of North-Western New Britain. Canberra: Australian National University.
  68. Torrance, N., & Olson, D. R. (1987). Development of the metalanguage and the acquisition of literacy: A progress report. Interchange, 18(1-2), 136-146.
  69. Trudgill, P. (2011). Sociolinguistic typology: Social determinants of linguistic complexity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  70. Urton, G. (2017). Inka history in knots: Reading Khipus as primary sources. Austin: University of Texas Press.
  71. Vágvölgyi, R., Coldea, A., Dresler, T., Schrader, J., & Nuerk, H.-C. (2016). A review about functional illiteracy: Definition, cognitive, linguistic, and numerical aspects. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1617.
  72. Wang, H. (2014). Writing and the ancient state: Early China in comparative perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  73. Watson, R., & Horowitz, W. (2011). Writing science before the Greeks: A naturalistic analysis of the Babylonian astronomical treatise MUL.APIN. BRILL. Retrieved from https://brill.com/view/title/19544
  74. Wharton, T. (2009). Pragmatics and non-verbal communication (1st ed.) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  75. Wheelock, W. (1982). The problem of ritual language: From information to situation. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 50(1), 49-71.
  76. Winters, J., Kirby, S., & Smith, K. (2018). Contextual predictability shapes signal autonomy. Cognition, 176, 15-30.
  77. Wray, A., & Grace, G. W. (2007). The consequences of talking to strangers: Evolutionary corollaries of sociocultural influences on linguistic form. Lingua, 117, 543-578.

MeSH Term

Communication
Cultural Evolution
Humans
Psycholinguistics
Time Factors
Writing
Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Article has an altmetric score of 13

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0communicationgraphiccodescapacitywritinglanguagesWritingasynchronousevolutioncodeconsistsymbolsunlikeinformationYetsystemsnaturalAsynchronousCommunicationpresenttheoreticalframeworkbearingwrittenanalyzespecialkindLikestableconventionalmappingsmeaningsspokensignedenduringimagesgivesuniquetransmitonegoacrosstimespaceusuallyremainsquiteunexploitedinsufficientlyinformativemayusedmnemonicpurposespropsoralreal-timeencountersworkencodinglanguageallowssupportpowerfulversatilewaywillautomaticallyunlockcommunicateasynchronouslyargueraritynon-literatesocietiesfrequentevenliterateonesintrinsicallyinefficientasynchronyconstrainsamountinterlocutorssharelimitspossibilitiesrepairexplainsynchronousface-to-facealwaysfostersdevelopmentsophisticatedsimilarevolvedifficultiesalsoimpliesevolvedfirstsupportingGraphicCodesCulturalLiteracyPragmaticsRepair

Similar Articles

Cited By