Fitch, W.T. (2000) The evolution of speech: a comparative review. Trends Cogn. Sci. 4, 258 -- 267 Home/Search Document Details and Download
Summary Related Articles Check |
This paper is cited in the following contexts:
Where Should Complexity Go? Cooperation in Complex Agents with.. - Bryson (2002) (Correct)
....This means signals must be very distinct, which in turn provides interdependent limits on how many different signals can exist, and how long processing or generating them might take. Human language has required a large number of evolutionary innovations in both generation and perception [20, 41]. 4. Conspecifics share a great deal of intelligence. This fact does not limit how detailed communication can be, rather it limits how detailed it needs to be. Species tend to largely share both perceptual abilities and behavior patterns. Further, a species innate behavior repertoire is likely ....
....as directing attention to goals, rather than managing a goal s completion in detail. Humans offer the only possible counter example to this argument, yet even between humans, the true efficacy of communication is often overestimated. Even with our exceptionally complex speech production apparatus [20] and high speed perceptual event processing [41] complex, structured language is not used much in urgent or simply time critical situations. For example, during a sporting event, utterances are generally limited in length and highly ritualized. Humans must hold enormous systems of shared beliefs ....
W. Tecumseh Fitch. The evolution of speech: A comparative review. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(7):258--267, 2000.
FOXP2 in focus: what can genes tell us about speech and language? - Marcus, Fisher (2003) (Correct)
No context found.
Fitch, W.T. (2000) The evolution of speech: a comparative review. Trends Cogn. Sci. 4, 258 -- 267
Online articles have much greater impact More about CiteSeer.IST Add search form to your site Submit documents Feedback
CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC