Taking Natural History Seriously in Studying the Social Formation of Thinking

Carpendale, Jeremy I. M.; Lewis, C. S.

doi:10.1159/000373898

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Conversely, it is also true that not all proponents of usage-based approaches have fully integrated the perspectives from evo-devo, complex adaptive systems and dynamic system theory into their work. For example, Carpendale and Lewis (2015) criticize Tomasello (2014) for not adequately integrating the dynamic relationship of evolution and development as well as the interactive dimension of ontogeny into his model of the emergence of uniquely human cognition (see also Carpendale et al, 2018). 4 Our comparison has therefore only scratched the surface of the conceptual convergences and divergences between the approaches.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These environments in turn are also shaped by learners themselves. Moreover, the emergence of particular learning factors in turn scaffold subsequent development in cascading, dynamic feedback loops within a multidimensional developmental web (e.g., Karmiloff-Smith, 2009; Caporael et al, 2014; Mascolo and Fischer, 2015; Overton, 2015; Carpendale et al, 2018).…”

Section: Convergence and Divergencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Constructing a Consensus on Language Evolution? Convergences and Differences Between Biolinguistic and Usage-Based Approaches

Pleyer

Hartmann

2019

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two of the main theoretical approaches to the evolution of language are biolinguistics and usage-based approaches. Both are often conceptualized as belonging to seemingly irreconcilable “camps.” Biolinguistic approaches assume that the ability to acquire language is based on a language-specific genetic foundation. Usage-based approaches, on the other hand, stress the importance of domain-general cognitive capacities, social cognition, and interaction. However, there have been a number of recent developments in both paradigms which suggest that biolinguistic and usage-based approaches are actually moving closer together. For example, theoretical advancements such as evo-devo and complex adaptive system theory have gained traction in the language sciences, leading to changed conceptions of issues like the relative influence of “nature” and “nurture.” In this paper, we outline points of convergence between current minimalist biolinguistic and usage-based approaches regarding four contentious issues: (1) modularity and domain specificity; (2) innateness and development; (3) cultural and biological evolution; and (4) knowledge of language and its description. We show that across both paradigms, researchers have come to increasingly embrace more complex views of these issues. They also have come to appreciate the view that biological and cultural evolution are closely intertwined, which lead to an increased amount of common ground between minimalist biolinguistics and usage-based approaches.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Convergence and Divergencementioning

confidence: 99%

Constructing a Consensus on Language Evolution? Convergences and Differences Between Biolinguistic and Usage-Based Approaches

Pleyer

Hartmann

2019

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Importantly, the development of mindreading and communication begins during the “primordial sharing situation,” where a child can hardly differentiate her/his experience between herself/himself, the caregiver, and the referential object, and only later progressive distancing and differentiation occurs between them (Werner & Kaplan, 1963, p. 42). Thus, the social-constructionist view is an example of a differentiating-out approach (Hobson, 2002) in contrast to joining-together approaches (e.g., Tomasello et al, 2005), where the starting assumption is that infants are separated from others, can only perceive other bodies, and have to infer minds (Carpendale et al, 2018). The social-constructionist view is also an action-based perspective on development, and thus proposes that when infants and toddlers begin to anticipate how others respond to them, they learn how others interpret their actions, and hence, learn to use them as communicative gestures.…”

Section: Mindreading Development: a Social-constructionist Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developmental continuity in coordination of perspectives as an alternative to the implicit and explicit theory of mind controversy.

Białecka‐Pikul¹,

Białek²

2021

Developmental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The dichotomy between explicit and implicit theory of mind remains controversial. This study proposed a developmental and social-constructionist perspective that challenges this notion through a model showing that coordination of perspectives (CoP) is a continuously developing ability in children. Our tested model comprises eight distinct abilities that emerge sequentially. We tested our model using 25 different tasks in a longitudinal six-wave study with 300 native Polish children aged from 1 year (M T1 = 1 year 0 months; SD T1 = 1.73 weeks; 44% girls) to 3.5 years (M T6 = 3 years 6 months; SD T6 = 1.81 weeks; 45% girls). All children were Caucasian; both parents of 54% children had university degree. Structural equation modeling with factor scores for each of the eight abilities was used to verify the fit of obtained data. We provide preliminary support for distinguishing six abilities: (a) immediate social perspective-tracking and taking at age of 1 year, (b) deferred social perspective-tracking and visual perspective-taking as an intermediate step at age of 2 years, and (c) epistemic perspective-tracking and taking at 3.5 years. Using our new nomenclature -emphasizing the function of coordination of own and another person perspective in social situations-we found that development of mindreading begins when infants coordinate their bodily-expressed orientations with those of others, and by the age of 4 is manifested by coordinating own and others mental states. Thus, we support the idea of heterotypic continuity of mindreading development. Development of CoP and difference between perspective-tracking and taking should be further elucidated.

show abstract

“…Conversely, it is also true that not all proponents of usagebased approaches have fully integrated the perspectives from evo-devo, complex adaptive systems and dynamic system theory into their work. For example, Carpendale and Lewis (2015) criticize Tomasello (2014) for not adequately integrating the dynamic relationship of evolution and development as well as the interactive dimension of ontogeny into his model of the emergence of uniquely human cognition (see also Carpendale et al, 2018). 4 Our comparison has therefore only scratched the surface of the conceptual convergences and divergences between the approaches.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constructing a consensus on language evolution? Convergences and differences between biolinguistic and usage-based approaches

Pleyer¹,

Hartmann²

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two of the main theoretical approaches to the evolution of language are biolinguistics and usage-based approaches. Both are often conceptualized as belonging to seemingly irreconcilable ‘camps.’ Biolinguistic approaches assume that the ability to acquire language is based on a language-specific genetic foundation. Usage-based approaches, on the other hand, stress the importance of domain-general cognitive capacities, social cognition, and interaction. However, there have been a number of recent developments in both paradigms which suggest that biolinguistic and usage-based approaches are actually moving closing together. For example, theoretical advancements such as evo-devo and complex adaptive systems theory have gained traction in the language sciences, leading to changed conceptions of issues like the relative influence of “nature” and “nurture.” In this paper, we outline points of convergence between current minimalist biolinguistic and usage-based approaches regarding four contentious issues: a) modularity and domain-specificity, b) innateness and development, c) cultural and biological evolution, d) knowledge of language and its description. We show that across both paradigms, researchers have come to increasingly embrace more complex views of these issues. They also have come to appreciate the view that biological and cultural evolution are closely intertwined, which leads to an increased amount of common ground between minimalist biolinguistics and usage-based approaches.

show abstract

Taking Natural History Seriously in Studying the Social Formation of Thinking

Cited by 6 publications

References 17 publications

Constructing a Consensus on Language Evolution? Convergences and Differences Between Biolinguistic and Usage-Based Approaches

Constructing a Consensus on Language Evolution? Convergences and Differences Between Biolinguistic and Usage-Based Approaches

Developmental continuity in coordination of perspectives as an alternative to the implicit and explicit theory of mind controversy.

Constructing a consensus on language evolution? Convergences and differences between biolinguistic and usage-based approaches

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About