Abstract

This paper critically examines two views on the evolution of argumentation, represented by Tomasello and Mercier and Sperber. These agree that the niche for individual human reasoning is argumentation and argumentation in turn is a form of social interaction. But there are two important differences. First, Tomasello restricts the emergence of argumentation to a second late phase in the evolution of human communication, that of public, community wide communication, preceded by a phase of cooperative dyadic communication; Mercier and Sperber do not recognize such a distinction in phases. Second, Mercier and Sperber take the role of argumentation to be to benefit the individuals engaged in social interaction; Tomasello sees it as specifically adapted to collective decision making, adopting a version of the theory of cultural group selection. On the basis of an even wider range of evidence and considerations, especially concerning the evolution of language, this paper argues that the best view combines Mercier and Sperber’s position on the first point with Tomasello’s on the second: Argumentation, crucially based on language, primarily benefits community wide coordination of action; it has not evolved in a separate late phase, but at least in tandem with dyadic collaboration and communication.