Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-zzw9c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-20T18:23:31.105Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Early pragmatic expectations in human infancy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2024

Tibor Tauzin ,
Pierre Jacob  and
György Gergely Open the ORCID record for György Gergely [Opens in a new window]
Tibor Tauzin
Affiliation:
Institute of Linguistics, University of Vienna, Wien, Austria tibor.miklos.tauzin@univie.ac.at;
Pierre Jacob
Affiliation:
Institut Jean Nicod, CNRS UMR 8129, Paris, France jacobpiotr11@gmail.com;
György Gergely*
Affiliation:
Department of Cognitive Science, Central European University, Wien, Austria gergelygy@ceu.edu
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is no room for pragmatic expectations about communicative interactions in core cognition. Spelke takes the combinatorial power of the human language faculty to overcome the limits of core cognition. The question is: Why should the combinatorial power of the human language faculty support infants' pragmatic expectations not merely about speech, but also about nonverbal communicative interactions?

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 47 , 2024 , e143
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bolhuis, J. J., Tattersall, I., Chomsky, N., & Berwick, R. C. (2014). How could language have evolved? PLoS Biology, 12(8), e1001934.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
Futó, J., Téglás, E., Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2010). Communicative function demonstration induces kind-based artifact representation in preverbal infants. Cognition, 117(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gergely, G., & Jacob, P. (2012). Reasoning about instrumental and communicative agency in human infancy. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 43, 59–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neff, M. B., & Martin, A. (2023). Do face-to-face interactions support 6-month-olds’ understanding of the communicative function of speech? Infancy, 28(2), 240–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Okumura, Y., Kanakogi, Y., Kobayashi, T., & Itakura, S. (2020). Ostension affects infant learning more than attention. Cognition, 195, 104082.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spelke, E. S. (2022). What babies know: Core knowledge and composition (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tauzin, T., & Gergely, G. (2019). Variability of signal sequences in turn-taking exchanges induces agency attribution in 10.5-mo-olds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(31), 15441–15446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2014). A natural history of human thinking. Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vouloumanos, A., Martin, A., & Onishi, K. H. (2014). Do 6-month-olds understand that speech can communicate? Developmental Science, 17(6), 872–879.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed