Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-frp75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T04:55:58.290Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why is language well designed for communication?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2008

Jean-Louis Dessalles
Jean-Louis Dessalles
Affiliation:
TELECOM ParisTech, ParisTech, Paris, F-75013, France. dessalles@enst.frhttp://www.enst.fr/~jld
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Selection through iterated learning explains no more than other non-functional accounts, such as Universal Grammar (UG), why language is so well designed for communicative efficiency. It does not predict several distinctive features of language, such as central embedding, large lexicons, or the lack of iconicity, which seem to serve communication purposes at the expense of learnability.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 31 , Issue 5 , October 2008 , pp. 518 - 519
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Briscoe, T. (2006) Language learning, power laws, and sexual selection. In: The evolution of language, ed. Cangelosi, A., Smith, A. D. M. & Smith, K.. World Scientific.Google Scholar
Bruner, J. (1986) Actual minds, possible worlds. Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chater, N. (1999) The search for simplicity: A fundamental cognitive principle? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 52(A):273–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1975) Reflections on language. Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Cornuéjols, A. (1996) Analogie, principe d'économie et complexité algorithmique. In: Actes des 11èmes Journées Françaises de l'Apprentissage. Sète. Available at: http://www.lri.fr/~antoine/Papers/JFA96-final-osX.pdf.Google Scholar
Dessalles, J.-L. (1998a) Limits of isotropic bias in natural and artificial models of learning. In: Apprentissage: Des principes naturels aux méthodes artificielles, ed. Ritschard, G., Berchtold, A., Duc, F. & Zigh, D. A.ed, pp. 307–19. Hermès. Available at: http://www.enst.fr/~jld/papiers/pap.cogni/Dessalles_97062502.pdf.Google Scholar
Dessalles, J.-L. (1998b) Altruism, status, and the origin of relevance. In: Approaches to the evolution of language: Social and cognitive bases, ed. Hurford, J. R., Studdert-Kennedy, M. & Knight, C., pp. 130–47. Cambridge University Press. Available at: http://www.enst.fr/~jld/papiers/pap.evol/Dessalles_96122602.pdf.Google Scholar
Dessalles, J.-L. (2007) Why we talk – The evolutionary origins of language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kirby, S. (2002) Learning, bottlenecks and the evolution of recursive syntax. In: Linguistic evolution through language acquisition: Formal and computational models, ed. Briscoe, T., pp. 173–203. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (1979) Théories du langage – Théories de l'apprentissage. Seuil.Google Scholar
Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (1989) Evolution, selection and cognition: From “learning” to parameter setting in biology and in the study of language. Cognition 31(1):1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomonoff, R. J. (1978) Complexity-based induction systems: Comparisons and convergence theorems. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 24(4):422–32. Available at: http://world.std.com/~rjs/solo1.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar