Graduate studies at Western
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (5):605-620 (2002)
|Abstract||In recent years we have seen a dramatic shift, in several different areas of communication studies, from an information-theoretic to a dynamic systems paradigm. In an information processing system, communication, whether between cells, mammals, apes, or humans, is said to occur when one organism encodes information into a signal that is transmitted to another organism that decodes the signal. In a dynamic system, all of the elements are continuously interacting with and changing in respect to one another, and an aggregate pattern emerges from this mutual co-action. Whereas the information-processing paradigm looks at communication as a linear, binary sequence of events, the dynamic systems paradigm looks at the relation between behaviors and how the whole configuration changes over time. One of the most dramatic examples of the significance of shifting from an information processing to a dynamic systems paradigm can be found in the debate over the interpretation of recent advances in ape language research (ALR). To some extent, many of the early ALR studies reinforced the stereotype that animal communication is functional and stimulus bound, precisely because they were based on an information-processing paradigm that promoted a static model of communicative development. But Savage-Rumbaugh's recent results with bonobos has introduced an entirely new dimension into this debate. Shifting the terms of the discussion from an information-processing to a dynamic systems paradigm not only highlights the striking differences between Savage-Rumbaugh's research and earlier ALR studies, but further, it sheds illuminating light on the factors that underpin the development of communication skills in great apes and humans, and the relationship between communicative development and the development of language. Key Words: apes; ape language research (ALR); brain development; co-regulation; communication; dynamic systems; language development; symbols.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Irene M. Pepperberg (2002). Research Scientist. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (5):636-636.
Chris Westbury (2002). Blind Men, Elephants, and Dancing Information Processors. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (5):645-646.
David Spurrett (2002). Information Processing and Dynamical Systems Approaches Are Complementary. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (5):639-640.
Joseph J. Pear (2002). Does the New Paradigm in Ape-Language Research Ape Behaviorism? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (5):635-636.
Edward Kako (2002). What Ape Language Research Means for Representations. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (5):629-629.
Francisco Calvo Garzón (2005). Rules, Similarity, and the Information-Processing Blind Alley. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):17-18.
Ansgar Beckermann (1994). Can There Be a Language of Thought? In G. White, B. Smith & R. Casati (eds.), Philosophy and the Cognitive Sciences. Proceedings of the 16th International Wittgenstein Symposium. Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky.
Barry J. Sessle & Dongyuan Yao (2002). Contribution of Plasticity of Sensorimotor Cerebral Cortex to Development of Communication Skills. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (5):638-639.
Josep Call (2011). How Artificial Communication Affects the Communication and Cognition of the Great Apes. Mind and Language 26 (1):1-20.
John D. Bonvillian & Francine G. P. Patterson (2002). A New Paradigm? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (5):621-622.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads64 ( #17,401 of 739,575 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,680 of 739,575 )
How can I increase my downloads?