| 1. |
- Zlatev, Jordan, et al.
(author)
-
Embodiment, language and mimesis
- 2007
-
In: Body, Language, Mind. Vol 1: Embodiment. - 1861-4132. ; , s. 297-337
-
Book chapter (other academic/artistic)abstract
- The present focus on embodiment in cognitive science undervalues concepts such as convention/norm, representation and consciousness. I argue that these concepts constitute essential properties of language, and this makes it problematic for “embodiment theories” to account for human language and cognition. These difficulties are illustrated by examining a particular, highly influential approach to embodied cognition, that of Lakoff and Johnson (1999), and exposing the problematic character of the notion of the “cognitive unconscious”. To attempt a reconciliation between embodiment and language, I turn to the concept of (bodily) mimesis, and propose the notion of mimetic schema as a mediator between the individual human body and collective language.
|
|
| 2. |
- Zlatev, Jordan, et al.
(author)
-
Stages and transitions in children’s semiotic development
- 2009
-
In: Studies in Language and Cognition. ; , s. 380-401
-
Book chapter (other academic/artistic)abstract
- Stage models were prevalent in developmental psychology in the past, but have recently been subjected to much criticism. We propose “rehabilitation”, defining semiotic stage as a (not necessarily stable) period characterized by the clear establishment of a novel semiotic capacity, which may “dominate” the communication of the child at this stage, but does not replace capacities from previous stages. This is spelled out by adopting one particular model of semiotic development – the Mimesis Hierarchy (Zlatev 2008a, 2008b) – and presenting comparative and developmental data from 6 children in Sweden and Thailand, between 18 and 27 months of age, analyzing their acts of bodily communication (ABCs) in relation to their emerging linguistic capacities. The results show evidence for a transition around 20 months, when children display the use of (stable) signs, shared with their community, in both the linguistic and gestural modalities, but do not yet systematically combine them. Only towards the end of the period under study does this begin to occur on a more routine basis. Implications are drawn for the continuous debate “insight” vs. gradual development in ontogeny, suggesting a compromise.
|
|
| 3. |
- Zlatev, Jordan, et al.
(author)
-
The coevolution of intersubjectivity and bodily mimesis
- 2008
-
In: The Shared Mind: Perspectives on Intersubjectivity. - Amsterdam : John Benjamins Publishing Company. - 1566-7774. - 9789027239006 - 9789027239068 - 9789027291011 ; 12, s. 215-244
-
Book chapter (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Brinck, Ingar, et al.
(author)
-
An applied analysis of attentional intersubjectivity
- 2006
-
Reports (other academic/artistic)abstract
- The goal of the present deliverable is to provide a developmental analysis of attentional intersubjectivity, which, as we show below, is a more inclusive notion than the more commonly used term ‘joint attention’ (e.g. Moore & Dunham 1995). The use of the term ‘joint attention’ is not consistent in the literature, sometimes referring to the general phenomenon when two or more subjects attend to the same target (e.g. Butterworth 2003), sometimes to more reciprocal situations in which the subjects also are aware of attending to the same target (e.g. Tomasello 1999). Most often solely visual attention has been described, but implicitly the descriptions have been thought to generalize to other modalities. The concepts introduced in this deliverable constitute an attempt to construct a coherent framework that will allow for distinguishing and comparing the range of behaviours that in the literature have been addressed as ‘joint attention’ behaviours. By attentional intersubjectivity we refer to the general case when two or more subjects simultaneously focus their attention on the same target. Attentional intersubjectivity will be further divided into types, according to which behaviours that are typically associated with attentional intersubjectivity occur during the interaction, and in which combinations. The result is that the over-all behaviour of the subjects during different types of attentional intersubjectivity differs. Our contentions are that: a) the types of attentional intersubjectivity identified in this report build on each other cumulatively and constitute different levels, and b) these levels correspond to evolutionary and developmental stages. In saying that the types are cumulative we mean that there is a progress by successive stages where each type is causally dependent on the type preceding it, and, furthermore, has increased in complexity as compared to previous types. While attentional intersubjectivity involves several perceptual modalities (at least vision, hearing, and touch), for practical reasons, this study primarily concerns the visual modality. Our analysis is, however, intended also to be applicable to these other modalities.
|
|
| 7. |
- Brinck, Ingar, et al.
(author)
-
The role of intersubjectivity in intentional communication
- 2008
-
In: The Shared Mind: Perspectives on Intersubjectivity.
-
Book chapter (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The present account explains (i) which elements of the act of nonverbal reference are intersubjective, (ii) which major effects intersubjectivity has on the development of intentional communication and at what stages, and (iii) how intersubjectivity contributes to trigger the general capacity for nonverbal reference in the second year. First, intersubjectivity is analysed in terms of a mutual or individual, dyadic or triadic, sharing of experiences. It is then shown that nonverbal reference presupposes intersubjectivity relative to communicative-intent indicating and referential behaviour, and the modification of previous behaviour in response to communication failure. It is argued that different forms of intersubjectivity entail different types of communicative skills. A comprehensive analysis of data on various gaze-related intersubjective behaviour in young infants shows that interaffectivity and interattentionality enable referential skills early in development and together allow for complex behaviour, but also that early referential skills arise by other mechanisms than in nonverbal reference and their functions do not overlap. Reliable and consistent use of nonverbal reference occurs when interaffectivity and interattentionality coalesce with interintentionality, which affords general cognitive skills, and these capacities together permit a decontextualisation of communicative behaviour.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Johansson, Sverker, et al.
(author)
-
Why don't chimps talk and humans sing like canaries?
- 2006
-
In: Behavioral and Brain Sciences. - 1469-1825 .- 0140-525X. ; 29:3, s. 287-288
-
Journal article (other academic/artistic)abstract
- We focus on two problems with the evolutionary scenario proposed: (1) It bypasses the question of the origins of the communicative and semiotic features that make language distinct from, say, pleasant but meaningless sounds. (2) It does little to explain the absence of language in, for example, chimpanzees: Most of the selection pressures invoked apply just as strongly to chimps. We suggest how these problems could possibly be amended.
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
