The problem of the emergence of communication systems lies at the heart of theories of cognition. It subsumes the problem of the emergence of symbols that seem conceptually indispensable for formulating explanations in cognitive science and artificial intelligence. Over the last two decades, this problem has been tackled using computational models, which made the theories more internally coherent and, at the same time, more comparable and classifiable. Models are grounded in different domains of inquiry – from philosophy to linguistics, to robotics – and motivated by questions relevant to those domains; yet, despite this variety, they seem to share some basic assumptions about the process of communication. We attribute these assumptions to two different sources.

The first source is the view of communication imposed by the influential work of Shannon in the mid-last century and strengthened by the facilitation of computational modelling that such a perspective carries. In most models, communication is understood as conveying messages from an information source to a destination via signals transmitted over a communication channel ( , ). In Shannon’s own words: “The fundamental problem of communication is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point”. This highlights the problem of message transmission as central for communication. The “meaning” of messages for a long time was in the second plane, usually simplified as a mapping between symbols and things in the agent environment, which realises the “grounding” of symbols ( , ). The message-object mapping, representing meaning, mirrors the message-code mapping central to information theory.

However, the fathers of information theory were convinced that the term communication should have a broader meaning. As ( ) put it: “The word communication will be used here in a very broad sense to include all of the procedures by which one mind may affect another”. This resonates with more pragmatic accounts of meaning that focus on influencing agent actions rather than representing the world. In human communication, this influence is often based on existing conventions. For example, I can signal a person to come closer or stay away using conventional gestures. This brings us to the second source of assumptions concerning communication: Lewis signaling game (from now on LSG; ( ) ). On the ground of game theory, Lewis demonstrated that a conventional communication protocol emerges as an equilibrium when two agents – sender and receiver – are rewarded for successful coordination; it is rational for the two agents to stick to the convention, even if the convention itself is arbitrary. This was Lewis’ solution to the problem of meaning creation by convention. Notably, in the original formulation of LSG information-theoretical tools were not used, and Shannon’s communication theory was not cited as a reference. Later, the two approaches were integrated by ( ) . Subsuming LSG into the general information-theoretical schema for communication, he was able to interpret signals as probabilistic events that carry information and conceptually integrate information quantity and information content (conventional meaning). However, the consequence of this move was undermining some of the pragmatic inclinations of the original Lewis work. Skyrms noted that in many situations signaling can be discussed equivalently in terms of information flow and in terms of coordination, but he preferred the first perspective, which reversed the original emphasis of Lewis. 1 footnote 1 1 footnote 1 In ( ) the word “information” appears 11 times, and the word “coordination” 138 times, in ( ) the word “information” appears 358 times, and the word “coordination” 7 times. This made it easy to once more conflate signaling with information transmission and to see LSG as part of the meaning-mapping enterprise.

The resulting signaling game framework, realised by many computational models, seems to be compatible with the concept of language games, pioneered by Wittgenstein ( ( ) , see also ( ) ). A classical example of a language game would be a builder who uses building stones of various shapes and asks his assistant to pass a stone of a particular shape. The language game results in success when the right kind of stone is passed. These kinds of structured interactions are simulated with artificial agents, the behaviour of which is governed by some internal adaptive mechanisms (for example, neural networks). At first, agents do not have any meaningful predispositions (policy), so their actions and signals that they produce are accidental. Each episode of the game brings consequences for the agents (for instance, success or failure) determining their reward, which make them update their predispositions. Through individual adaptations, agents become more successful, but at the same time, they change the rules of the game for other agents. For example, if an agent adopts the word “glud” to refer to a cuboid-shaped stone, other agents need to pick up on that to successfully interact with the first agent. In this aspect, the adaptation process resembles coevolution within a population, rather than a simple optimisation of individual fitness. Computational simulations demonstrate how this iterative adaptation can lead to the emergence of stable communication systems.

Existing work on emergent communication has repeatedly demonstrated the possibility of learning a conventionalised mapping from a set of discrete signals to a set of objects without any central authority. Optimal mapping can be learnt under various settings, agent architectures, and adaptation mechanisms ( , ). Natural languages, however, with their richness and expressiveness, do not resemble simple bidirectional mappings. They include parts of speech that are not easily mapped to objects or events, they involve complex syntax and grammar, they tolerate nuances and ambiguities (and exploit them, as in the case of poetry), they allow speculative conversations on abstract entities, and they crucially depend on interaction in time. Much work is still needed to build an adequate account of these phenomena within the field of language emergence modelling. But the direction in which to proceed is unclear. In this paper, we claim that the field is in a state of a local minimum created by a particular set of assumptions. This obscures the view, taking some properties of the communication process for granted and leaving crucial aspects of language unexplored.

Getting stuck in the above-mentioned local minimum hinders the efforts to scale up from simple signaling games to structured communication systems, which can be used as complex compositional controls in time-dependent interactions within structured environments. Recent developments in cognitive science, linguistics, psycholinguistics, and linguistic anthropology point to multiple processes and properties of communication, which appear to be overlooked in dominant models and might be crucial for this kind of scaling up. Theories that ground communication in biological information processes ( , ), interaction-dominant and pragmatics-oriented processes ( , ), dynamical systems models of cognition ( , ) and enaction ( , ) offer a richer perspective on the nature and functions of communication. Bringing them into play on the modelling level may be helpful in overcoming some of the obstacles.

In this paper, we review several attempts of emergent communication modelling that we deem representative to the multitude of models that have appeared over the last two decades and evaluate them in terms of their merits and shortcomings. This will allow a better grasp of their underlying common assumptions about the process of communication and identification of those, which might be responsible for hindering the progress towards modelling the emergence of structured symbolic systems. The main claim of the paper is that progress does not hinge on the complexification of the existing models, making them more efficient computationally or applicable to more complex environments, nor even in a creative composition of the models. We claim that in order to leave the local minimum, we need to examine closely and perhaps suspend some of the core, and very basic, assumptions on which the extant modelling efforts rest. For this, we perhaps need to back out of some habits of thinking and seek guidance in those theories which do not assume an easy reduction of the problem of communication to the engineering problem of information transmission. From this widened perspective, we can recognise that language is not a product of a single optimisation process, but is shaped by multiple factors. Thus, sources of complexity of language are multiple and may possibly interact, leading to emergent properties. It is possible that language properties that have simple formal description, for example recursively nested structures described with formal grammars, could nevertheless be shaped by multiple interacting pressures. Opening up this possibility will hopefully set novel explanatory targets for the models and open new avenues for research on emergent symbolic communication.

Computational models of the emergence of communication come from a variety of research traditions, reflecting their theoretical goals, definitions, and methods. Giving justice to their recent proliferation is beyond any single publication. We roughly group them by discipline to draw the reader’s attention to different explanatory roles assigned to the simulations. These arise from differences in the perspectives on language in general and on the place, role, and nature of language within human cognition and behaviour. We will point out how those differences are manifested in computational modelling and use the presence and prominence of such models in a discipline as a criterion to include them in this review. An (admittedly simplified) picture in Figure  illustrates some of the commitments and explanatory targets of the models in different scientific disciplines (the division of the domains is an idealisation).

Philosophical reflection on the nature of language and its relation to thought is probably as old as philosophy itself. In this context, game-theoretic models have been used in research of social conventions, normativity, and semantic information, starting from the influential work of ( ) . He formalised the notion of convention, which arises in the interaction of agents. The sender has to communicate the state of the world to the receiver by emitting discrete signals, upon which the receiver produces an adequate reaction. Lewis’ original motivation was to provide a game-theoretic explication for the notion of truth by convention (and defend it against ( ) ). His ideas influenced many other authors.

When implemented as computer simulations, these models are kept abstract and usually consist of disembodied agents passing discrete tokens. The goal is not to faithfully portray actual processes but rather to support certain philosophical positions by demonstrating the theoretical possibility of the bottom-up emergence of conventions. In recent years, this thread has been developed to account for more complex communication processes ( , ).

In the area of linguistics, computational models of language emergence are used to ask a variety of questions. Contrary to biological evolution, language as such (before writing) leaves no “fossils”, so the communicative systems of early humans (or hominids) are difficult to uncover. In this context, agent-based simulations became attractive tools for testing hypotheses about the origins of language and possible evolutionary trajectories, both on the biological and cultural time scales. The goals are theoretical: models concern various aspects of language, such as evolution of lexemes and systematic variation of syntax ( ( ) ; for a review, see, e.g., ( ) ) or evolution of vocabulary. Compared to the philosophical tradition, simulations developed within evolutionary linguistics tend to be more focused on language structure. The results of the simulations are compared with the empirical data to assess their plausibility as models of language evolution and change ( , ).

In the field of cognitive psychology, the emphasis is on the connection between communication and language and other cognitive processes, mainly internal, such as memory, categorisation, and reasoning. For example, emergent language, stabilised in language games, has been shown to be a factor determining the shared structure of individual categories within populations ( , ). Some models in this field do concern the emergence of language on the developmental timescale, although, curiously and symptomatically, these rarely take the form of computational simulation. However, an interesting turn can be noticed from the focus on learning as tuning of the predetermined generative structure, resulting in the production of a well-formed language ( , ), to a focus on how developmental and functional processes might be reflected in the language structure ( , ). In the former approach, which spurned modern psycholinguistics, cognitive psychology was seen as a subsidiary to linguistics, responsible for less theoretically noble processes of realisation (performance; ( ) ), while in the latter it comes to the fore as a source of processes that structure language ( , ). Some models address directly how language structure is shaped by and, in turn, shapes other processes (cognitive, environmental, or social). For example, models explored the effects of “starting small”, that is, with a smaller memory capacity ( , ), or of interactive factors within social environments or various demographic characteristics such as population size or social structure on language evolution ( , ).

Emergent communication models have also enjoyed a recent surge of interest in the machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) community. Consistently with the original mission of AI, here research is focused on replicating cognitive processes which are necessary to develop and use human intelligence, in this case language. A great deal of machine learning research on emergent communication addresses fundamental questions concerning the structure of language. ( ) demonstrated that reinforcement learning-driven agents are capable of solving the LSG in which input is given as raw pixel images, not symbolic tokens. Emerged protocols displayed some degree of systematic structure, although ad-hoc vocabulary fitted to a particular game was preferred. Several other studies focused on the circumstances under which a more structured language appears ( , ). Other models are not motivated directly by replicating human cognitive processes but arther by engineering problems related to natural language understanding. ( ) work on emergent dialogue is to some extent motivated by the work on visually-grounded conversational systems ( , ). The formulation of the problem in ( ) is motivated by image captioning ( , ). ( ) posed the problem of unsupervised visually grounded translation as a LSG. The potential applications of emergent communication research in explainable AI ( , ) are also an intense area of research. They focus mainly on translating a communication protocol emerging between agents in the context of some task into a natural language such as English. For visually grounded approaches, this can be done using labelled images by relying on visual semantics determined by the class hierarchy of the images ( , ). Another approach is to align utterances in English and in an emergent communication protocol with respect to the effects they exert on a trained receiver. This also paves the way for natural language understanding by artificial agents.

The trend of making simulations more realistic and embodied is taken even further in artificial life and cognitive robotics communities. In this tradition, agents are not abstract entities but autonomous mobile robots (usually simulated in silico to some extent). Their communication is intertwined with the rest of their activity, often involving exploration of the environment and search for food or other agents ( , ). Stress is placed primarily on the robustness of emerging communication protocols and minimal starting assumptions, as communication should scale up to realistic environments. More advanced communication features are built from the bottom-up rather than arbitrarily imposed. Some works in this tradition aim to explain basic aspects of animal communication in different evolutionary scenarios ( , ), while others target phenomena characteristic for human languages, such as its productivity, presence of grammatical structures, and the focal role of dialogue ( , ). In contrast to other domains, signals appearing in robotics models are often modulated by multiple factors and are not fully controlled by agents. For example, in ( ) communication is realised through light signals that have colour regulated by the sender, but also properties dependent on the physics of the environment (directionality, possibility of being obscured by obstacles, etc.).

As can be glimpsed from the above, each discipline, which includes communication in its area of interest, has explanatory targets dependent on its general nature and goals. Models are designed to address various aspects of communication and language emergence, sometimes using different techniques. It seems that one of the problems in constructing more comprehensive models of language emergence is the compartmentalization of scientific efforts into different domains. The domain in which we see the greatest proliferation of models and in which most novel techniques appear is AI, where research is often motivated by concrete engineering problems and not theory of language per se. The novel modelling techniques do radiate to the basic problems and their respective domains, however, already tinted by the specific approach. On the other hand, recent advances in the respective fields that are interested in the theory of language emergence (developmental linguistics, language evolution, enactivism) are rather slow to seep into the computational models. In consequence, designed models often rely on a simplified treatment of the basic problems, which are the core of more theoretically rich approaches, and modelling results cannot be easily incorporated into constructed theories. Here, cognitive science, integrating multiple disciplines from linguistics to psychology to anthropology to computer science, has a good chance to serve as a bridge between the domains. Importantly, due to the recent “ecological turn” toward action-oriented and situated cognitive science, it has the opportunity to integrate processes over the biological, developmental and communication timescales ( , ).

We identify ourselves with the positions of such ecological cognitive science. From this perspective, we point out how this lack of flow of ideas between domains might slow down progress of computational modelling as a significant aid for the theoretical models of communication and language emergence. In the following, we describe concrete examples of models which best illustrate the various theoretical goals. We will show their advantages and contributions, but also indicate the possible simplifications, which will be the basis for conclusions regarding further progress.

Despite different distributions of accents of the above domains, recently they have increasingly used computational simulations implemented as agent-based models with explicit agent architectures. This facilitates the recognition of basic assumptions regarding the communication and language on which they are based. As a blueprint for the analysis of all kinds of modelling efforts, we adopt Lewis signaling game (LSG). As a minimal architecture for an interactive communicative setting, it delimits a broad class of models, capturing the essential elements of the problem of convention- or signal-based social coordination. It is recognised and sometimes explicitly built-on across various disciplines (from philosophy and anthropology to psychology, biology, economics, etc.). This should further facilitate the comparison of the models on a conceptual level, in terms of modifications of this basic scheme for various reasons, which can be evaluated as welcome or unwelcome from the theoretical point of view. Showing their basic compatibility with the LSG should also reveal that they share limitations inherent in the blueprint itself, if indeed such limitations are present.

LSG consists of two agents, a sender and a receiver, a set of states of affairs (stimuli), a set of signals, and a set of responses. A sender observes a state of nature, sends a signal to the receiver, and the receiver chooses a response. There is a unique correct response given the state of affairs unknown to the receiver. If the receiver chooses the correct response, both the sender and the receiver are rewarded. In the course of learning (or evolution), the agents converge to a Nash equilibrium such that the receiver always chooses the correct response. This means that the agents must have agreed upon a convention: a mapping from states of nature to signals and from signals to responses. Lewis called this a signaling system (nowadays it is also called a communication protocol).

The original interpretation of the LSG involved rational agents maximising their reward. ( ) later reinterpreted it in terms of evolutionary game theory: he demonstrated that signaling systems may emerge through simple replicator dynamics (which may represent both biological and cultural evolution). He proposed that the information present in the signaling system is sufficient to provide a general account of semantic meaning. According to Skyrms, meaning emerges in the symmetry breaking of converging to one signaling system (out of several possible). Each signal can be assigned a descriptive meaning (when an external observer estimates the probability of the sender perceiving certain stimulus given the signal) and indicative meaning (when an external observer estimates the probability of the receiver performing certain action given the signal). Such meaning is a property of the signal system as a whole and does not presuppose that the sender and receiver are rational agents introducing any kind of meaning of their own.

Several other problems in philosophy and social science can be formalised in terms of LSGs. The labour market can be modelled in terms of employees (senders) who signal their ability to employers (receivers) through educational credentials (signals) ( , ). Voter ignorance and the spread of misinformation can be modelled in terms of people (senders) maintaining or spreading false beliefs (signals) to signal their group identity or political affiliation ( , ). ( ) recently considered generalised LSGs consisting of multiple subgames. These include games that evolved from simpler games through template transfer or modular composition. Template transfer assumes that some adaptations that emerged in the context of one signaling game can be transferred to another game. One of the possibilities would be to reuse the same structure of emitted signals and adapt them for a new set of stimuli. Template transfer assumes the historicity of the evolution or learning process giving rise to the signaling systems – previous adaptations pave the way for the new ones. The games themselves are independent and, in principle, could also be learnt in another order or in parallel. In contrast, modular composition is based on recursively nested games, where a simpler game becomes a part of a more complex one. A variety of social, cognitive, and semiotic phenomena can be understood in terms of generalised signaling games, including logical inference ( , ), information integration in a network of agents ( , ), functional specialisation, and communication structuring ( , ).

Reflection on the structure of the existing models demonstrates noble efforts to investigate various aspects of the communication emergence problem, yet at the same time reveals several gross categories of simplifications, which – while useful in addressing concrete engineering problems or even concrete isolated theoretical questions – might obscure the essential properties of human communication that need to be addressed in a successful explanatory model:

All these simplifications are in line with the basic structure of LSG as seen through the lenses of Shannon’s information transmission ( , ). Although some existing models depart from these simplifications (usually not all three of them at once), in general, they hold surprisingly strong. We assume that this is due to a widespread approach to symbols, which treats them as something “given”, which exists independently of meaning, similar to unbound variables in a computer program ready to be associated with some values. Symbols are thus perceived as discrete abstract entities with formal properties that can be manipulated. Years of dominance of the information processing and computer metaphor in the cognitive sciences result in thinking about symbols as necessary assumptions prior to constructing explanations. This makes it easy to forget that their existence also needs to be explained. Consequently, the explanatory thrust is towards how we can manipulate symbols, combine them, and decipher their meaning. But the problem of the emergence of complex communication essentially includes the problem of symbol emergence: how do they come into being in the first place? What kinds of meaningful relations do they require to be described as symbols ( , )?

Assuming abstract symbols with arbitrary meanings as a starting point is also limiting because it puts the burden of structuring communication on the conventions created from scratch by the agents and realised by their internal architecture, neglecting or limiting the role that the environment and interactions with it perform. In the real world, the sources of forces that shape and structure communication are multiple. For instance, physical properties of the signals also take part in determining their meaning (like the light direction in ( ) ), situated agents can only communicate effectively within some distance (as in ( ) ), etc. Neglecting the ways symbols might be created in interactions within a particular ecology obscures these sources of complexity, leaving us only with the simplified view of communication meaning as mapping from symbols to features ( , ).

Following the above review and the summary of theoretical considerations, we identify some of the most important sources of communication complexity and formulate the desiderata for a successful model that includes them.

Regarding different sources of communication complexity, we may treat them as semi-independent. It is reasonable that some models explicitly focus on a single source and attempt to isolate it from the others. This makes the model easier to interpret and helps to demonstrate the importance of the particular source. For example, ( ) study perceptual grounding with minimal agents in an environment limited to colour stimuli. However, this choice should be conscious and well motivated and it should be recognised that the sources of complexity may be hard to isolate, as they can be easily conflated when sufficient complexity is introduced. Models which take seriously the notions of embodiment and situatedness operate under the assumptions which are of consequence for most sources of communication complexity listed above.

For instance, in ( ) physical space constraints (inability of multiple robots to occupy the same spot) had consequences for the socio-ecological function of communication. In this work, the robots had to locate and attach themselves to a food source, but because of the limited space only a certain number of robots could feed simultaneously. Thus, communicating the location of food posed the risk that some other agent would exploit the scarce resource. This implicit cost of communication, depending on the evolutionary selection mechanisms, resulted in various communication strategies, from honest signaling to deceptive communication ( , )). In some cases, the robots also learnt to exploit the physical properties of the medium of communication: they hid emitted light signals from the other robots by hiding behind the food source ( , ). This is an example of an emergent behaviour, which could not evolve in a simpler environment.

The environment adopted by ( ) was minimalistic in the sense that it is devoid of any objects apart from the agents. Still, the agents were situated in the sense that they could freely move in continuous space and use their own locations as a context for communication. Importantly, the emitted signals were continuous and were interpreted as such. This opened new possibilities for meaning emergence, as the signal intensity could convey information on the distance in space (basic iconic form of significance). What emerged was not a static signal-referent mapping, which can be used to interpret only previously encountered signals, but a dynamical structure using signals to control agent actions that was capable of generalisation. Ultimately, that allowed for the dialogical form of communication where the signals of both agents became entangled to emerge.

Situatedness is also naturally connected with aspects of perceptual and sensorimotor grounding. It was shown that situating agents in more complex environments has a positive influence on systematic generalisation. Although not directly addressing the problem of language emergence, ( ) presented a model in which they studied the effects of embodiment on language comprehension. Their agent had to navigate through the environment and perform actions according to the instructions given as a sentence in natural language. They demonstrated that (i) egocentric perspective (as opposed to third-person view), (ii) 3d simulated environments (as opposed to 2d grid worlds) and (iii) active perception (as opposed to perceiving the stimuli statically) incentivise the agent to factorise experience and behaviours into pragmatically motivated reusable chunks, leading to better generalisation as shown in experiments isolating factors (i)-(iii). These results provide an explanation of previous results, showing a low systematic generalisation in recurrent neural networks trained on symbolically encoded stimuli from a single modality ( , ). ( ) hypothesise that this effect arises because richer experience is a form of implicit data augmentation. This suggests that the human capacity to exploit the structure of the world, when learning to generalise in systematic ways, could be replicated in artificial neural networks if those networks are given access to a rich, interactive, multimodal stream of stimuli that better matches the experience of an embodied human learner.

Models of communication emergence come from multiple traditions, which explains the differences in terminology and emphasis. The lack of systematic understanding of the assumptions behind various models contributes to a barrier preventing researchers from one domain from building on the modelling efforts from another domain. We hope that our review will be helpful in building such a systematic understanding.

As is made clear by our analysis, the pressures shaping communication signs and symbols are many, and building a model means bracketing some of them out. Sometimes, however, the bracketing is too heavy and too hasty, as it may remove the vital elements of the explanation. Perhaps the fascination with one particular kind of a language game, involving a sender, a receiver, and clearly distinguished referents, made us forget that games people play are multiple ( , ). We propose a change of perspective to the dynamic one advocating embodied and situated models, which naturally accommodate multiple forces, make room for recognising the historicity of communication systems, and do not presuppose the existence of readily distinguishable symbols. This requires freeing language from its sole role of world-describer to a broader function of interaction controller. Under such a view, the mapping metaphor is no longer adequate to explain the meaning of language and cannot be used as a foundation for communication emergence models. Instead, we propose to pay more attention to models where meaning emerges as a transformation of agents interaction in an ecological niche.

This work was funded by National Science Centre, Poland (OPUS 15 grant, 2018/29/B/HS1/00884). The funding source had no role in data collection and manuscript preparation. The authors declare no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions: JZ, TK, JRL contributed to the conception, writing and editing of the manuscript.