Simplicity and complexity in human and nonhuman communication.

Abstract

Comments on an article by Limor Raviv et al. (see record 2023-07345-001). Raviv et al. argue that the conflicting findings from human language and from studies of communication in nonhuman animals boil down to different levels of analysis used by researchers studying non-humans compared with those studying humans. Researchers studying nonhuman animal communication typically focus on the size of signal repertoires or the structural variation within and among signals within a repertoire. Researchers studying human language, conversely, largely focus on the question of grammatical rules that govern the way units (words and phrases) are put together in speech streams. Rules of composition that govern the way units are put together are considered more complex in nonhuman signaling systems, but simpler in human language systems. The discrepancy here, according to Raviv et al., stems from two sources. According to the commenting authors, the take home message of Raviv et al. is one that will be helpful to future studies of the evolution of communication systems. Raviv et al. recommend that we work harder to avoid terms such as "complex" and "simple" with regard to communication and instead focus on the specifics of what we are analyzing. Phrases such as "larger repertoire size" or "stronger compositional structure" represent cleaner and more neutral phrases for discussions of communication and would better allow findings from non-humans and from humans to be compared. Finally, Raviv et al. advocate for greater collaborative work across nonhuman and human communication systems, and interdisciplinary work has a long history of fundamental discoveries. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).