Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-vdhp9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-15T17:03:43.670Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From the pragmatics of charades to the creation of language

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2023

Nick Chater Open the ORCID record for Nick Chater [Opens in a new window]  and
Morten H. Christiansen Open the ORCID record for Morten H. Christiansen [Opens in a new window]
Nick Chater
Affiliation:
Behavioural Science Group, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK. nick.chater@wbs.ac.uk
Morten H. Christiansen
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA. christiansen@cornell.edu Interacting Minds Centre and School of Communication and Culture, Aarhus University, 8000 Aarhus, Denmark
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We agree with Heintz & Scott-Phillips that pragmatics does not supplement, but is prior to and underpins, language. Indeed, human non-linguistic communication is astonishingly rich, flexible, and subtle, as we illustrate through the game of charades, where people improvise communicative signals when linguistic channels are blocked. The route from non-linguistic charade-like communication to combinatorial language involves (1) local processes of conventionalization and grammaticalization and (2) spontaneous order arising from mutual constraints between different communicative signals.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e7
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Berwick, R. C., & Chomsky, N. (2016). Why only us: Language and evolution. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(6), 1482–1493.Google ScholarPubMed
Bybee, J., Perkins, R., & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chater, N., & Christiansen, M. H. (2022). Grammar through spontaneous order. In Lappin, S. & Bernady, J.-P. (Eds.), Algebraic structures in natural language (pp. 61–75). CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2022). The language game: How improvisation created language and changed the world. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, R. (1971). The origin and development of Latin habeo + infinitive. Classical Quarterly, 21(1), 215–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Contreras Kallens, P., & Christiansen, M. H. (2022). Models of language and multiword expressions. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 5, 781962.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fleischman, S. (1982). The future in thought and language: Diachronic evidence from romance. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Misyak, J., & Chater, N. (2022). Instantaneous systems of communicative conventions through virtual bargaining. Cognition, 255, 105097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Blackwell.Google Scholar