Emergence of the Islamic creationists

  • Stratford J
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
44Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

© 2016, Psychonomic Society, Inc. The approach to language evolution suggested here focuses on three questions: How did the human brain evolve so that humans can develop, use, and acquire languages? How can the evolutionary quest be informed by studying brain, behavior, and social interaction in monkeys, apes, and humans? How can computational modeling advance these studies? I hypothesize that the brain is language ready in that the earliest humans had protolanguages but not languages (i.e., communication systems endowed with rich and open-ended lexicons and grammars supporting a compositional semantics), and that it took cultural evolution to yield societies (a cultural constructed niche) in which language-ready brains could become language-using brains. The mirror system hypothesis is a well-developed example of this approach, but I offer it here not as a closed theory but as an evolving framework for the development and analysis of conflicting subhypotheses in the hope of their eventual integration. I also stress that computational modeling helps us understand the evolving role of mirror neurons, not in and of themselves, but only in their interaction with systems “beyond the mirror.” Because a theory of evolution needs a clear characterization of what it is that evolved, I also outline ideas for research in neurolinguistics to complement studies of the evolution of the language-ready brain. A clear challenge is to go beyond models of speech comprehension to include sign language and models of production, and to link language to visuomotor interaction with the physical and social world.

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Stratford, J. A. (2004). Emergence of the Islamic creationists. Cladistics, 20(2), 215–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2004.00016.x

Readers over time

‘10‘11‘12‘13‘14‘15‘16‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘2202468

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 25

63%

Researcher 9

23%

Professor / Associate Prof. 6

15%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29

81%

Business, Management and Accounting 3

8%

Social Sciences 2

6%

Arts and Humanities 2

6%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0