Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:17:20.643Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

If you presume relevance, you don't need a bifocal lens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2022

Nazlı Altınok Open the ORCID record for Nazlı Altınok [Opens in a new window] ,
Denis Tatone ,
Ildikó Király ,
Christophe Heintz  and
György Gergely
Nazlı Altınok
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Konstanz, 78457 Konstanz, Germany altinok.nazli@gmail.com
Denis Tatone
Affiliation:
Department of Cognitive Science, Central European University, 1100 Vienna, Austria denis.tatone@gmail.com HeintzC@ceu.edu GergelyGy@ceu.edu
Ildikó Király
Affiliation:
Department of Cognitive Science, Central European University, 1100 Vienna, Austria denis.tatone@gmail.com HeintzC@ceu.edu GergelyGy@ceu.edu MTA-ELTE Social Minds Research Group, Eötvös Loránd University, 1064 Budapest, Hungary kiraly.ildiko@ppk.elte.hu
Christophe Heintz
Affiliation:
Department of Cognitive Science, Central European University, 1100 Vienna, Austria denis.tatone@gmail.com HeintzC@ceu.edu GergelyGy@ceu.edu
György Gergely
Affiliation:
Department of Cognitive Science, Central European University, 1100 Vienna, Austria denis.tatone@gmail.com HeintzC@ceu.edu GergelyGy@ceu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We argue for a relevance-guided learning mechanism to account for both innovative reproduction and faithful imitation by focusing on the role of communication in knowledge transmission. Unlike bifocal stance theory, this mechanism does not require a strict divide between instrumental and ritual-like actions, and the goals they respectively fulfill (material vs. social/affiliative), to account for flexibility in action interpretation and reproduction.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e250
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. 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

Altınok, N., Király, I., & Gergely, G. (2022). The propensity to learn shared cultural knowledge from social group members: Selective imitation in 18-month-olds. Journal of Cognition and Development, 23(2), 273–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Begus, K., Gliga, T., & Southgate, V. (2016). Infants’ preferences for native speakers are associated with an expectation of information. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(44), 12397–12402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bicchieri, C. (2006). The grammar of society: The nature and dynamics of social norms. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brosseau-Liard, P. E., & Poulin-Dubois, D. (2014). Sensitivity to confidence cues increases during the second year of life. Infancy, 19(5), 461–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brugger, A., Lariviere, L. A., Mumme, D. L., & Bushnell, E. W. (2007). Doing the right thing: Infants' selection of actions to imitate from observed event sequences. Child Development, 78(3), 806–824.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buttelmann, D., Zmyj, N., Daum, M., & Carpenter, M. (2013). Selective imitation of in group over out group members in 14-month-old infants. Child Development, 84(2), 422–428.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2009). Natural pedagogy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(4), 148–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2011). Natural pedagogy as evolutionary adaptation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366(1567), 1149–1157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gergely, G. (2013). Ostensive communication and cultural learning: The natural pedagogy hypothesis. In Metcalfe, J. & Terrace, H. S. (Eds.), Agency and joint attention (pp. 139–151). Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gergely, G., & Jacob, P. (2012). Reasoning about instrumental and communicative agency in human infancy. In Benson, J. B., Xu, F., & Kushnir, T. (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior. Vol. 43: Rational constructivism in cognitive development (pp. 59–94). Academic Press/Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heintz, C., & Scott-Phillips, T. (2022). Expression unleashed: The evolutionary & cognitive foundations of human communication: VERSION December 2021. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1–46. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X22000012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Király, I., Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2013). Beyond rational imitation: Learning arbitrary means actions from communicative demonstrations. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116(2), 471–486.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nielsen, M. (2006). Copying actions and copying outcomes: Social learning through the second year. Developmental Psychology, 42(3), 555.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Southgate, V., Chevallier, C., & Csibra, G. (2009). Sensitivity to communicative relevance tells young children what to imitate. Developmental Science, 12(6), 1013–1019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Blackwell.Google Scholar