Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T08:09:16.382Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The brain plus the cultural transmission mechanism determine the nature of language

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2008

Kenny Smith ,
Simon Kirby  and
Andrew D. M. Smith
Kenny Smith
Affiliation:
Cognition and Communication Research Centre, Division of Psychology, Northumbria University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, NE1 8ST, United [email protected]://drkennysmith.googlepages.com/
Simon Kirby
Affiliation:
Language Evolution and Computation Research Unit, School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 9LL, United Kingdom. [email protected]://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~simon/[email protected]://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~andrew/
Andrew D. M. Smith
Affiliation:
Language Evolution and Computation Research Unit, School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 9LL, United Kingdom. [email protected]://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~simon/[email protected]://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~andrew/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We agree that language adapts to the brain, but we note that language also has to adapt to brain-external constraints, such as those arising from properties of the cultural transmission medium. The hypothesis that Christiansen & Chater (C&C) raise in the target article not only has profound consequences for our understanding of language, but also for our understanding of the biological evolution of the language faculty.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 31 , Issue 5 , October 2008 , pp. 533 - 534
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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

Ackley, D. & Littman, M. (1992) Interactions between learning and evolution. In: Artificial life 2, ed. Langton, C., Taylor, C., Farmer, J. & Rasmussen, S., pp. 487–509. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Kirby, S. (1999) Function, selection and innateness: The emergence of language universals. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirby, S. (2001) Spontaneous evolution of linguistic structure: An iterated learning model of the emergence of regularity and irregularity. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 5:102–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirby, S., Dowman, M. & Griffiths, T. (2007) Innateness and culture in the evolution of language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 104:5241–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirby, S., Smith, K. & Brighton, H. (2004) From UG to universals: Linguistic adaptation through iterated learning. Studies in Language 28:587–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, K. (2004) The evolution of vocabulary. Journal of Theoretical Biology 228:127–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, K., Brighton, H. & Kirby, S. (2003a) Complex systems in language evolution: The cultural emergence of compositional structure. Advances in Complex Systems 6:537–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, K. & Kirby, S. (2008) Natural selection for communication favours the cultural evolution of linguistic structure. In: The evolution of language: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference, ed. Smith, A. D. M., Smith, K. & Ferrer i Cancho, R., pp. 283–90. World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar