Natural language / neuro economics II

we had a first round over NL in the post NL / neuro economics [NLNE]. Curiously, at that time our (rapid) web foraging missed the important "faculty of language" Hauser et al. 2002 paper [FL]. We will go further in the subject with the 2016 Hauser Watumull 'UGF' and 2014 'On recusion' papers.
FL is interesting for us for two reasons :
a. it links to Learning Fallacy II [LF]
b. it links with NLNE and A Conceptual Representation CR


FL has a clear comparative approach, and its semantics fields builds on the Data Expandion DE  Large Symmetry LS tradeoff of LF :  'compar' : 39, 'analog' : 10, 'homolog' 12, specif : 18, uniq : 30.
$$FL \rightarrow Data \,Expansion / Large \, Symmetry$$
In detail :

a. "We hypothesize that FLN only includes recursion and is the only uniquely human component of the faculty of language".
$$FL.animals \rightarrow DE $$"Although scholars interested in language evolution have often ignored comparative data altogether or focused narrowly on data from nonhuman primates, current thinking in neuroscience, molecular biology, and developmental biology indicates that many aspects of neural and developmental function are highly conserved, encouraging the extension of the comparative method to all vertebrates (and perhaps beyond) ."
"Although this line of reasoning may appear obvious, it is surprisingly common for a trait to be held up as uniquely human before any appropriate comparative data are available."

b. "We further argue that FLN may have evolved for reasons other than language, hence comparative studies might look for evidence of such computations outside of the domain of communication (for example, number, navigation, and social relations)."
"We consider the possibility that certain specific aspects of the faculty of language are “spandrels”—by-products of preexisting constraints rather than end products of a history of natural selection (39). This possibility, which opens the door to other empirical lines of inquiry, is perfectly compatible with our firm support of the adaptationist program. Indeed, it follows directly from the foundational notion that adaptation is an “onerous concept” to be invoked only when alternative explanations fail."$$FL.(bio)functions \rightarrow LS$$ in more detail:
$$communication, number, navigation, social \, relations \rightarrow FLN \\  \Rightarrow universal \, constraint \,(computational \, and \, biological) \\ \Rrightarrow LS $$ (it should be read recursively : \( [[x \rightarrow y] \Rightarrow z] \Rrightarrow u \)
This reasoning line dwells on the computational perspective of our NLNE: the problem of NL is a computational one, then a simplicity / creativity one, so essentially - as much as we learnt from Nature eons trial and error 'foraging', recursion is 'nearly optimal'. FL makes clear reference to the Minimalist program : "Recent work on FLN (4, 41–43) suggests the possibility that at least the narrow-syntactic component satisfies conditions of highly efficient computation to an extent previously unsuspected."
$$FL \rightarrow recursion$$
As already mentioned in NLNE, First Order Logic expressiveness is not enough, your need more 'deepness'. The 2-Cat concept in category theory is not proper neither for a conceptual representation, and CR is a tentative trial to a general Creative Assistant.