Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T06:45:17.121Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Being ostensive (reply to commentaries on “Expression unleashed”)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2023

Christophe Heintz Open the ORCID record for Christophe Heintz [Opens in a new window]  and
Thom Scott-Phillips Open the ORCID record for Thom Scott-Phillips [Opens in a new window]
Christophe Heintz
Affiliation:
Department of Cognitive Science, Central European University, Quellenstraße 51, 1100 Wien, Austria christophe.heintz@gmail.com http://christophe.heintz.free.fr/
Thom Scott-Phillips
Affiliation:
Institute for Logic, Cognition, Language & Information, Carlos Santamaria Zentroa 2, Plaza de Elhuyar, 20018 Donostia-San Sebastian, Spain. thom.scottphillips@gmail.com https://thomscottphillips.com/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One of our main goals with “Expression unleashed” was to highlight the distinctive, ostensive nature of human communication, and the many roles that ostension can play in human behavior and society. The commentaries we received forced us to be more precise about several aspects of this thesis. At the same time, no commentary challenged the central idea that the manifest diversity of human expression is underpinned by a common cognitive unity. Our reply is organized around six issues: (1) languages and their cultural evolution; (2) the pervasiveness of expression in human behavior; (3) artificial intelligence and ostensive communication; (4) communication in other animals; (5) the ecology and evolution of ostensive communication; and (6) biolinguistics and pragmatics.

Type
Authors' Response
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e20
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ateş, B. Ş., & Küntay, A. C. (2018). Referential interactions of Turkish-learning children with their caregivers about non-absent objects: Integration of non-verbal devices and prior discourse. Journal of Child Language, 45(1), 148–173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baumard, N., & Sperber, D. (2010). Weird people, yes, but also weird experiments. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 84–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berwick, R. C., & Chomsky, N. (2016). Why only us? Language & evolution. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohn, M., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2015). Communication about absent entities in great apes and human infants. Cognition, 145, 63–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carston, R. (2000). The relationship between generative grammar and (relevance-theoretic) pragmatics. Language & Communication, 20(1), 87–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. (2002a). Thoughts & utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R. (2002b). Linguistic meaning, communicated meaning and cognitive pragmatics. Mind & Language, 17(1–2), 127–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N., Gallego, Á. J., & Ott, D. (2019). Generative grammar and the faculty of language: Insights, questions, and challenges. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 18, 229–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, M., & Chater, N. (2022). The language game: How improvisation created language & changed the world. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Claidière, N., Scott-Phillips, T., & Sperber, D. (2014). How Darwinian is cultural evolution? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 369, 20130368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, R. A. (2021). The linguistics wars: Chomsky, Lakoff, and the battle over deep structure. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heintz, C. (2013). What can't be inferred from cross-cultural experimental games. Current Anthropology, 54(2), 165–166.Google Scholar
Heintz, C. (2014). Scaffolding on core cognition. In Caporael, L., Wimsatt, W. C., & Griesemer, J. (Eds.), Developing scaffolds in evolution, culture, & cognition (pp. 209–228). MIT Press.Google Scholar
Helming, K. A., Strickland, B., & Jacob, P. (2014). Making sense of early false-belief understanding. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(4), 167–170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ho, M. K., Cushman, F., Littman, M. L., & Austerweil, J. L. (2021). Communication in action: Planning and interpreting communicative demonstrations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(11), 2246–2272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, M. E., & Allen, S. E. M. (2013). The effect of individual discourse-pragmatic features on referential choice in child English. Journal of Pragmatics, 56, 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R., & Pinker, S. (2005). The nature of the language faculty and its implications for evolution of language (reply to Fitch, Hauser, and Chomsky). Cognition, 97(2), 211–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirby, S. (1999). Function, selection & innateness: The emergence of language universals. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Laland, K., Uller, T., Feldman, M., Sterelny, K., Müller, G. B., Moczek, A., … Strassmann, J. E. (2014). Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Nature, 514(7521), 161–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewens, T. (2019). The extended evolutionary synthesis: What is the debate about, and what might success for the extenders look like? Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 127(4), 707–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard Smith, J., & Harper, D. G. C. (2003). Animal signals. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Murphy, E. (2020). Language design and communicative competence: The minimalist perspective. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 5(1), 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Origgi, G., & Sperber, D. (2000). Evolution, communication, and the proper function of language. In Carruthers, P. & Chamberlain, A. (Eds.), Evolution & the human mind: Language, modularity & social cognition (pp. 140–169). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salazar Orvig, A., Marcos, H., Morgenstern, A., Hassan, R., Leber-Marin, J., & Parès, J. (2010). Dialogical beginnings of anaphora: The use of third person pronouns before the age of 3. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(7), 1842–1865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scholz, B. C., Pelletier, F. J., Pullum, G. K., & Nefdt, R. (2022). Philosophy of linguistics. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2022 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/linguistics/Google Scholar
Scott-Phillips, T. (2017). Pragmatics and the aims of language evolution. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(1), 186–189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott-Phillips, T., Blythe, R., Gardner, A., & West, S. (2012). How do communication systems emerge? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B, 279, 1943–1949.Google ScholarPubMed
Scott-Phillips, T., & Heintz, C. (2023). Animal communication in linguistic & cognitive perspective. Annual Review of Linguistics, 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott-Phillips, T., Laland, K. N., Shuker, D. M., Dickins, T. E., & West, S. A. (2014). The niche construction perspective: A critical appraisal. Evolution, 68(5), 1231–1243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott-Phillips, T. C., Blancke, S., & Heintz, C. (2018). Four misunderstandings about cultural attraction. Evolutionary Anthropology, 27, 162–173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siegal, M., & Beattie, K. (1991). Where to look first for children's knowledge of false beliefs. Cognition, 38(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skarabela, B. (2007). Signs of early social cognition in children's syntax: The case of joint attention in argument realization in child Inuktitut. Lingua. International Review of General Linguistics. Revue Internationale de Linguistique Generale, 117(11), 1837–1857.Google Scholar
Skarabela, B., Allen, S., & Scott-Phillips, T. (2013). Joint attention helps explain why children omit new arguments. Journal of Pragmatics, 56, 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., Caro, F., & Girotto, V. (1995). Relevance theory explains the selection task. Cognition, 57(1), 31–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tauzin, T., Bohn, M., Gergely, G., & Call, J. (2020). Context-sensitive adjustment of pointing in great apes. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tauzin, T., & Gergely, G. (2018). Communicative mind-reading in preverbal infants. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, D., & Carston, R. (2006). Metaphor, relevance and the “emergent property” issue. Mind & Language, 21(3), 404–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zawidzki, T. (2013). Mindshaping. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar