Graduate studies at Western
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31 (5):518-519 (2008)
|Abstract||Selection through iterated learning explains no more than other non-functional accounts, such as Universal Grammar (UG), why language is so well designed for communicative efficiency. It does not predict several distinctive features of language, such as central embedding, large lexicons, or the lack of iconicity, which seem to serve communication purposes at the expense of learnability|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
H. W. Love (1992). Communication, Accountability and Professional Discourse: The Interaction of Language Values and Ethical Values. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 11 (11):883-892.
Richard Breheny (2006). Communication and Folk Psychology. Mind and Language 21 (1):74-107.
Ruth G. Millikan (2003). In Defense of Public Language. In Louise M. Antony & H. Hornstein (eds.), Chomsky and His Critics. Blackwell.
Bryan Renne (2008). Public and Private Communication Are Different: Results on Relative Expressivity. Synthese 165 (2):225 - 245.
Christopher Gauker, Language and Thought. A Field Guide to the Philosophy of Mind.
Niclas Rönnström (2011). Cosmopolitan Communication and the Broken Dream of a Common Language. Educational Philosophy and Theory 43 (3):260-282.
Gilbert Harman (1975). Language, Thought, and Communication. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 7:270-298.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads2 ( #246,187 of 723,496 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?