dialect nettle, dunbar

Nettle, D., and Dunbar, R.I.M. (1997)

Social markers and the evolution of reciprocal exchange

Current Anthropology, 38, 1, 93 - 99

p 93 ' Most anthropologists take the human propensity to form groups based on cooperative exchange as a theoretical primitive.  Groups of this kind do seem to be an integral and fundamental part of human social structure'.  The question is why. Natural selection depends on genes and therefore the individual. Cooperative activity that involves the transmission of knowledge does have survival value - but what about reciprocation , how can  it be considered to be 'an evolutionary stable strategy' when you need to give things away. However cooperation is only viable ' when there is relatedness or guaranteed reciprocity between individuals'.

Kinship can secure cooperation,  for unrelated individuals there  has to be a high likelihood of 'meeting in the future ' ,Axelrod (1884) , therefore  continuity is essential for securing cooperative social relations. Suggestion from anthropological studies ' language serves an important index of social allegiances, and this indexing could well be important for the maintenance off group cohesion'.

p94 'why should so much of the surface form of language be acquired from the environment, and why should that environment have come to be so different the world over' Pinker and Bloom (1990) have addressed this question. First, they explain, to represent a complete language, including all the words, genetically might consume excessive genotypic space. Secondly, as the language faculty must be expected to change by genetic drift, an individual with an innate language might well fall out of step with his peers. It would thus be advantageous to have a code with developmental flexibility. To home in on that spoken in the group. Thirdly, as Hinton and Nowlan (1987) find, once most of a trait is determined genetically, selective pressure to represent the rest of the genotype declines, because learning can be relied upon to fill it. Divergence, it is argued, arises as an accidental consequence of the genetic under specification of language.

p 94 'Individuals do not just learn any language, they  " construct their system of verbal behaviour to resemble that common to the group or groups with which (they) wish from time to time to be identified "LePage 1968' p 192

  p 94/95 'Gaertner and Bickman (1971), Giles, Baker, and Fielding (1975), Feldman (1968) and Harris and Bardin ( 1972) have all shown in various contexts.... that use of a highly valued speech variety greatly increases success in obtaining cooperation from strangers' .... ' that access to cooperation depends of having the use of the right linguistic markers. This socio-indexical role may be a function of language of some evolutionary importance.......As Chambers (1995, 208,250) puts it " The fact that linguistic variability is universal and ubiquitous suggests strongly that is fulfilling some essential human need..... The underlying cause of sociolinguistics differences.....is the human instinct to establish and maintain social identity"

Simulation study

An organism's initial  position in an environment  is random and the probability of meeting another organism is   random but the further apart they are the less likely that they will meet. 

Each organism has a memory span and each simulation a set time.

Task - to accumulate wealth. Giving costs 1 unit but the receiver's wealth will increase by 2 units.  ' the asymmetry precisely mirrors the fitness consequences of exchange'

Four types of organisms. Each type has its own exchange statelegy

•   COOPs always gives when it meets another, unless it can remember giving and not receiving in an encounter with that particular individual. ' It this follows a tit for tat strategy of the kind which is highly effective in organisms that can reliably recognise each other'

•   CHEATS - free rider, never gives to anyone

•   POLYGOTS - dialects come into play,. POLYGOTS gives gifts only if the recipient has a nearly identical dialect. When it receives a gift it changes it's dialect to that of its benefactor. In addition it may change one of the numbers that define its dialect probability of this occurring is it's CHANGERATE

•   MIMICS. Also a free rider but changes it's dialect to be like that of a benefactor when it receives a gift.

Results

COOPS and CHEATS

A population  of all COPS does very well

 Introducing just 5 CHEATS is disastrous irrespective of how the other parameters are set - could only counteract by setting memory span at an unrealistic level

POLYGOTS and MIMICS

When all the organisms are POLYGOTS distinctive dialects emerge. Organisms in the same dialect group exchange and therefore keep standardising their dialects, whilst those in differ groups cease to exchange. As long as minimal levels for memory span and duration are met, CHEATS cannot invade although they dominate initially.

MIMICS a minimum of 5 (for this model) needed to invade and can displace the POLYGOTS. However if CHANGERATE of POLYGOTS is increased then MIMICS fail.

Discussion

The simulation is a simple system. Nevertheless ' it shows that cooperation can evolve more easily in a simple system where social marking is present than in one where it is not'

p 98 ' producing distinctive codes may be a way that reciprocal exchange in large groups can be made more stable'

In f-f other systems e.g. Clothing, and other artefacts could be adopted.

' our great skill in using and assessing language as a social marker is an adaptive psychological mechanism tied up with the very development of human exchange and communication'

Learning by watching

Terry Mayes, Finbar Dineen, Jean McKendree and John Lee (2002)

Learning from Watching others Learn

In

Networked Learning: Perspectives and Issues

Christine Steeples and Chris Jones (Eds)

Springer, London

Theoretical background

Vicarious learning cf Bandura

Study led them from FAQs and other specific subject matter to p214 ‘more generalized benefits, for the vicarious learner, of seeing how to engage in learning dialogues’

Mayes ‘learning as a by product of comprehension’

McKendree et al (1998) ‘dialogue central to the learners ‘enculturation’ as well as the learning itself. i.e. p215 ‘ a higher level of alignment. The learner acquires a new set of norms and procedures’ and has led to a model of how to behave as a successful learner.

The studies

P218

A study in the context of students preparing syntactic trees.

2 conditions

1. animated diagram

2. animated diagram together with a dialogue

Condition 2 gave the best results

KRO Is vicarious or imitation learning an appropriate tool for construction of understanding.

P223

A specifically designed study, students financially rewarded for outcome – ‘when students engage in discussions themselves, we find those who have seen vicarious resources have been modelling the tasks and language seen in them’ when listening to exemplar dialogues they are overhearers. (KRO lurkers in CMC)

Comment

P224

‘Stenning et al (2000) have provided an account about what aspects of educational dialogue make it particularly amenable to capture and re-use for overhearers e.g. show rather than just tell ( KRO another word for modelling)

led to a situation where ‘the authority of the tutor is largely abrogated in favour of the more abstract authority of ‘reasoning norms’ – KRO a method that could be used to engender all sorts of reasoning norms.

P225

‘in most educational settings the rules which govern overhearing are well understood and form part of the experience of learning as a member of the group.’

Why would new learners want to access previous dialogue? What motivates? ‘ will depend on the potency of the identification that the new learner can develop for the original participants and the extent to which the dialogue is considered relevant to the achievement of the learners goal …… success depends on ‘extent to which the original participants in the dialogue are seen as representative members of a target CoP’

Being a learner involves ‘ constructing an identity in relation to the community’

CoP ‘not a description of learning per se, or how people learn together. It provides a very high level design heuristic and in that sense it tells us where we should start looking for design principles which address the key question of motivation.

Look up Fowler and Mayes (1999) and ideas of learning relationships.