Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Primate social knowledge and the origins of language.Robert M. Seyfarth & Dorothy L. Cheney - 2008 - Mind and Society 7 (1):129-142.
    Primate vocal communication is very different from human language. Differences are most pronounced in call production. Differences in production have been overemphasized, however, and distracted attention from the information that primates acquire when they hear vocalizations. In perception and cognition, continuities with language are more apparent. We suggest that natural selection has favored nonhuman primates who, upon hearing vocalizations, form mental representations of other individuals, their relationships, and their motives. This social knowledge constitutes a discrete, combinatorial system that shares several (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • The nature of the language faculty and its implications for evolution of language (Reply to Fitch, Hauser, and Chomsky).Steven Pinker - 2005 - Cognition 97 (2):211-225.
    In a continuation of the conversation with Fitch, Chomsky, and Hauser on the evolution of language, we examine their defense of the claim that the uniquely human, language-specific part of the language faculty (the “narrow language faculty”) consists only of recursion, and that this part cannot be considered an adaptation to communication. We argue that their characterization of the narrow language faculty is problematic for many reasons, including its dichotomization of cognitive capacities into those that are utterly unique and those (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   36 citations  
  • The nature of the language faculty and its implications for evolution of language (Reply to Fitch, Hauser, and Chomsky).Ray Jackendoff - 2005 - Cognition 97 (2):211-225.
    In a continuation of the conversation with Fitch, Chomsky, and Hauser on the evolution of language, we examine their defense of the claim that the uniquely human, language-specific part of the language faculty (the “narrow language faculty”) consists only of recursion, and that this part cannot be considered an adaptation to communication. We argue that their characterization of the narrow language faculty is problematic for many reasons, including its dichotomization of cognitive capacities into those that are utterly unique and those (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   44 citations