| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Zlatev, Jordan, et al.
(author)
-
Motion, Emotion and Mind Science
- 2012
-
In: Moving Ourselves, Moving Others: Motion and Emotion in Intersubjectivity, Consciousness and Language. - 978 90 272 4156 6 ; , s. 1-28
-
Book chapter (other academic/artistic)
|
|
| 3. |
- Smith, Viktor, et al.
(author)
-
Unpacking noun-noun compounds : interpreting novel and conventional food names in isolation and on food labels
- 2014
-
In: Cognitive Linguistics. - : Walter de Gruyter GmbH. - 1613-3641 .- 0936-5907. ; 25:1, s. 99-147
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In two complementary experiments we took an integrated approach to a set of tightly interwoven, yet rarely combined questions concerning the spontaneous interpretation of novel (unfamiliar) noun-noun compounds (NNCs) when encountered in isolation, and possible (re) interpretations of novel as well as conventional (familiar) NNCs when encountered in verbo-visual context. To enhance ecological validity, we mirrored our research questions in real-life concerns on the naming of commercial food products and the risk of consumers being misled by the names that producers give to them, focusing on the Danish food market and using Danish NNCs. Specifically, we addressed a highly productive type of compound food names where the modifier denotes a geographical entity and the head denotes a type of food, e. g. Hawaii pizza. Our findings contribute new evidence to central issues of (cognitive) linguistic theory concerning the relations between semantics and pragmatics, as well as system and usage, and psycholinguistic issues concerning the processing of NNCs. New insights and methodological tools are also provided for supporting future best practices in the field of food naming and labelling.
|
|
| 4. |
- Zlatev, Jordan, et al.
(author)
-
From body to mouth (and body)
- 2010
-
In: Evolution Of Language, Proceedings. - 9789814295215 ; , s. 527-528
-
Conference paper (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 5. |
- Zlatev, Jordan, et al.
(author)
-
Bodily Mimesis and the Transition to Speech
- 2014
-
In: The Evolution of Social Communication in Primates: A Multidisciplinary Approach. - Cham : Springer International Publishing. - 2199-3068. - 9783319026688 - 9783319026695 ; 1, s. 165-178
-
Book chapter (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The chapter reviews evidence for the bodily mimesis hypothesis, which states that the evolution of language was preceded by an adaptation for improved volitional control of the body, giving our ancestors advantages in the domains of imitation, empathy, and gestural communication. Much of this evidence is also shared by other gesture-first theories of language origins, but they face the problem of explaining the "switch" from a gestural (proto) language to a spoken one. The bodily mimesis hypothesis fares better with this objection, since it (a) emphasizes the non-conventionality and non-systematicity of bodily mimetic signaling, (b) posits a long biocultural spiral of conventionalization and adaptation for speech, and (c) insists that the transition to speech should be seen as only partial. Following Brown (2012), a cognitive-semiotic explanation can further be given as to why speech has eventually taken on increasingly higher communicative load: Vocalization is intrinsically less capable of iconic representation, and given a multimodal gestural-vocal communicative signal, the vocal element is bound to eventually take on the role of symbolic representation, involving higher levels of conventionality and systematicity.
|
|
| 6. |
- Zlatev, Jordan, et al.
(author)
-
Die Möglichkeit sprachlichen Einflusses auf das Denken
- 2013
-
In: Zeitschrift für Semiotik. - 0170-6241. ; 35:1-2, s. 63-83
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In this article, we discuss four obstacles that stand in the way for a productive investigation into the kind of influence that language may have on thinking. The first is that it is impossible to distinguish language from thought, so that the question of possible “influence” is mute. The second is that it is impossible to disentangle language from culture in general, and from social interaction in particular, so that it is impossible to attribute any differences in the thought patterns of the members of different cultures to language per se. The third objection argues that language may affect thinking by expressing new information, but that thesis is either trivial or untenable because of methodological and empirical problems. The fourth is the assumption that since language can potentially influence thought from “not at all” to “completely”, the possible forms of verbal influence can be arranged on a cline, and competing theories can be seen as debating their actual position on this cline. We present counter-arguments to all these claims, and show that the first three do not constitute in principle objections against the project of investigating verbal influence on thought, and the last one is not the best way to frame the empirical challenge at hand. Thus, while we do not argue for any specific type of verbal influence on thought, we claim that it is possible, and thereby intend to clear the way for further investigations into the topic.
|
|
| 7. |
- Zlatev, Jordan
(author)
-
Human uniqueness, bodily mimesis and the evolution of language
- 2014
-
In: Humana.Mente. - 1972-1293. ; :27
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- I argue that an evolutionary adaptation for bodily mimesis, the volitional use of the body as a representational devise, is the “small difference” that gave rise to unique and yet pre-linguistic features of humanity such as (over)imitation, pedagogy, intentional communication and the possibility of a cumulative, representational culture. Furthermore, it is this that made the evolution of language possible. In support for the thesis that speech evolved atop bodily mimesis and a transitional multimodal protolanguage, I review evidence for the extensive presence of sound-symbolism in modern languages, for its psychological reality in adults, and for its contribution to language acquisition in children. On a meta-level, the argument is that dividing human cognitive-semiotic evolution into a sequence of stages is crucial for resolving classical dichotomies on human nature and language, which are both natural and cultural, both continuous with and discontinuous from those of (other) animals.
|
|
| 8. |
- Zlatev, Jordan, et al.
(author)
-
The co-evolution of human intersubjectivity, morality and language
- 2014
-
In: The Social Origins of Language. - 9780199665327 - 9780199665334 ; , s. 249-266
-
Book chapter (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The chapter argues that language, which rests on the sharing of linguistic norms, honest information, and moral norms, evolved through a co-evolutionary process with a pivotal role for intersubjectivity. Mainstream evolutionary models, based only on individual-level and gene-level selection, are argued to be incapable to account for such sharing of care, values and information, thus implying the need to evoke multi-level selection, including (cultural) group selection. Four of the most influential current theories of the evolution of human-scale sociality, those of Dunbar, Deacon, Tomasello and Hrdy, are compared and evaluated on the basis of their answers to five questions: (1) Why we and not others? (2) How: by what mechanisms? (3) When? (4) In what kind of social settings? (5) What are the implications for ontogeny? The conclusions are that the theories are to a large degree complementary, and that they all assume, explicitly or not, a role for group selection. Hrdy’s theory, focusing on the evolution of alloparenting, is argued to provide the best explanation for the onset of the evolution of human intersubjectivity, and can furthermore offer a Darwinian framework for Tomasello’s theory of shared intentionality. Deacon’s theory deals rather with the evolution of morality and its co-evolution with “symbolic reference”, but these are necessarily antecedent to the primary evolution of human intersubjectivity. Dunbar’s theory on the transition from “musical” vocal-grooming to vocal “gossip” can be seen as providing a partial explanation for evolution of spoken language, most likely with Homo heidelbergensis 0.5 MYA, but presupposes the capacities accounted for by the other models.
|
|
| 9. |
- Zlatev, Jordan, et al.
(author)
-
Toward and integrated model of semiotic development
- 2014
-
In: Cognitive Development: Theories, Stages, Processes and Challenges. - 9781631176043 ; , s. 59-76
-
Book chapter (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In previous work, McCune (1995, 2008) and Zlatev (2007, 2013) recognized the importance of reviving a coherent cross-domain theory of semiotic development. Despite inevitable differences, the two approaches converge on their explanations of development across the first three years. Both recognized representational ability as a critical feature at the transition to language and both emphasized the importance of intersubjectivity. McCune sought a non-linguistic measure of mental representation for comparison with language development in its early phases and operationalized Piaget’s descriptions of play levels through detailed analyses of naturalistic longitudinal and cross-sectional data. Zlatev documented a step-wise development of intersubjectivity over the first three years of life, emphasizing the central role of bodily mimesis (cf. Donald, 1991). Despite varying sources, both models identified five levels/stages of semiotic development that cohere remarkably well. The present chapter presents a comparison of the McCune and Zlatev models, and proposes an integrated account offering a more complete analysis that now recognizes six stages of semiotic development, extending from birth through three years of age. The model is discussed in the context of broader frameworks such as dynamic systems (Thelen and Smith, 1994) and cognitive semiotics (Zlatev, 2012).
|
|
| 10. |
- Ahlner, Felix, et al.
(author)
-
Cross-modal iconicity: A cognitive semiotic approach to sound symbolism
- 2010
-
In: Sign Systems Studies. - 1406-4243. ; 38:1/4, s. 298-348
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- It is being increasingly recognized that the Saussurean dictum of "the arbitrariness of the linguistic sign" is in conflict with the pervasiveness of the phenomenon commonly known as "sound symbolism". After first presenting a historical overview of the debate, however, we conclude that both positions have been exaggerated, and that an adequate explanation of sound symbolism is still lacking. How can there, for example, be (perceived) similarity between expressions and contents across different sensory modalities? We offer an answer, based on the Peircian notion of iconic ground, and G. Sonesson's distinction between primary and secondary iconicity. Furthermore, we describe an experimental study, in a paradigm first pioneered by W. Kohler, and recently popularized by V. Ramachandran, in which we varied vowels and consonants in fictive word-forms, and conclude that both types of sounds play a role in perceiving an iconic ground between the word-forms and visual figures. The combination of historical conceptual analysis, semiotic explication and psychological experimentation presented in this article is characteristic of the emerging paradigm of cognitive semiotics.
|
|
