Conclusion - Computational Linguistics and Talking Robots - page 238

Nevertheless, it would shed doubt on DBS as a theory if it turned out to be
incompatible with the mechanisms of evolution. By the same token, if DBS
can be shown to be analogous to evolution in some relevant process, this may
increase interest in DBS for aspects other than synchronic performance alone.
The DBS analysis of learning 9 resembles evolution in that it starts from fixed
behavior patterns (FAPs) and reconstructs learning by disassembling the parts
and recombining them into adaptive behavior. For such a metamorphosis to be
automatic, the steps from one state to the other must (i) be small enough to be
driven by the interaction with the environment, (ii) be suitable for both “ag-
gregate states,” (iii) and evolve in a meaningful time-linear sequence, parallel
branches not excluded. The software would be a kind of genetic algorithm,
from which much could be learned for applications.
Another question raised by evolution is whether the language component
evolved from (i) a nonlanguage component or from (ii) a non-communication
component. This is in part a terminological question. The two dichotomies are
language and nonlanguage and communication and non-communication.
For example, a chameleon picking up an insect with its long tongue uses
a non-communication as well as a nonlanguage ability. Yet, like all liv-
ing beings, chameleons also have an ability to communicate with their con-
specifics. 10 As far as we know, the chameleon kind of communication does not
satisfy criteria 3 and 4 for being a natural language listed in 2.2.3. Thus, the
chameleon uses nonlanguage communication abilities, for example, by chang-
ing the color of its skin to attract a mate (Karsten et al. 2009).
The two dichotomies may be used to construct two hypotheses about the
evolution of natural language, shown graphically as follows:

12.3.1 C ONSECUTIVE VS .C ONCURRENT H YPOTHESIS

a. Consecutive hypothesis:

language ability evolves from non−language abilities

non−language
abilities

language
ability

time line

transition to language

b. Concurrent hypothesis:
language ability evolves from communication ability

communication
ability

language

ability

non−communication

abilites