Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Types of Integration in a Theory of Language Cover

Types of Integration in a Theory of Language

Psychology of Language and Communication
Volume 16 (2012): Issue 2 (December 2012)
By: Joanna Rączaszek-Leonardi  
Open Access
|Dec 2012

References

  1. Altmann, E.G., Pierrehumbert, J.B., Motter, A.E. (2011). Niche as a determinant of word fate in online groups. PLoS ONE, 6 (5), e19009.10.1371/journal.pone.0019009
    Search in Google Scholar
  2. Auvray, M., Lenay, C., & Stewart, J. (2009). Perceptual interactions in a minimalist environment. New Ideas in Psychology, 27, 79-97.10.1016/j.newideapsych.2007.12.002
    Search in Google Scholar
  3. Berkum, J.J.A. van (2008). Understanding sentences in context: What brain waves can tell us. Current directions in psychological science, 17 (6), 376-380.10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00609.x
    Search in Google Scholar
  4. Boski, P. & Iben Youssef, K. (2012). Consequences of linguistic frame switching: Cognitive and motivational shifts in bilingual Tunisians. Psychology of Language and Communication, 16 (2), 65-85.10.2478/v10057-012-0011-y
    Search in Google Scholar
  5. Bybee, J. (2002). Word frequency and context of use in the lexical diffusion of phoneti­cally conditioned sound change. Language Variation and Change, 14, 261-290.10.1017/S0954394502143018
    Search in Google Scholar
  6. Cangelosi, A. (2010). Grounding language in action and perception: From cognitive agents to humanoid robots. Physics of Life Reviews, 7 (2), 139-151.10.1016/j.plrev.2010.02.001
    Search in Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky, N. (2011). Language and other cognitive systems. What is special about language? Language Learning and Development, 7, 263-278.
    Search in Google Scholar
  8. Cohn, M.A., Mehl, M.R., & Pennebaker, J.W. (2004). Linguistic markers of psychologi­cal change surrounding September 11, 2001. Psychological Science, 15, 687-693.10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00741.x
    Search in Google Scholar
  9. Cowley, S.J. (2004). Contextualizing bodies: How human responsiveness constrains distributed cognition. Language Sciences, 26, 565-591.10.1016/j.langsci.2004.09.005
    Search in Google Scholar
  10. Di Paolo, E.A., Rohde, M., & Iizuka, H. (2008). Sensitivity to social contingency or stability of interaction? Modelling the dynamics of perceptual crossing. New Ideas in Psychology, 26, 278-294.10.1016/j.newideapsych.2007.07.006
    Search in Google Scholar
  11. Dumas, G., Nadel, J., Soussignan, R., Martinerie, J., & Garnero, L. (2010). Inter-Brain Synchronization during Social Interaction. PLoS ONE, 5 (8), e12166.10.1371/journal.pone.0012166
    Search in Google Scholar
  12. Fay, N., Garrod, S., Roberts, L.L., & Swoboda, N. (2010). The interactive evolution of human communication systems. Cognitive Science, 34, 351-386.10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01090.x
    Search in Google Scholar
  13. Fusaroli, R. & Tylén, K. (2012). Carving Language for Social Interaction: a dynamic approach. Interaction studies, 13 (1), 103-123.10.1075/is.13.1.07fus
    Search in Google Scholar
  14. Galantucci, B. (2005). An experimental study of the emergence of human commu­nication systems. Cognitive Science, 29 (5), 737-767.10.1207/s15516709cog0000_34
    Search in Google Scholar
  15. Galantucci, B. & Garrod, S. (2011). Experimental semiotics: A review. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5:11. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2011.0001110.3389/fnhum.2011.00011
    Search in Google Scholar
  16. Gleason, J.B. & Ratner, N.B. (1997). Psycholinguistics, 2nd edition. New York: Har- court Brace.
    Search in Google Scholar
  17. Hodges, B.H. (2007). Values define fields: The intentional dynamics of driving, car­rying, leading, negotiating, and conversing. Ecological Psychology, 19, 153-178.
    Search in Google Scholar
  18. Kelso, J.A.S. (1995). Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behavior. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  19. Kirby, S., Cornish, H., & Smith, K. (2008). Cumulative cultural evolution in the laboratory: An experimental approach to the origins of structure in human lan­guage. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105 (31), 10681-10686.10.1073/pnas.0707835105
    Search in Google Scholar
  20. Kirby, S., Christiansen, M., & Chater, N. (2009). Syntax as an adaptation to the learner. In D. Bickerton & E. Szathmáry (Eds.), Biological foundations and origin of syntax (pp. 325-343). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  21. Kutas, M. & Federmeier, K.D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 621-647.10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123
    Search in Google Scholar
  22. Leonardi, G. (2012). The study of language and conversation with recurrence analysis methods. Psychology of Language and Communication, 16 (2), 87-105.10.2478/v10057-012-0012-x
    Search in Google Scholar
  23. Loreto, V. & Steels, L. (2007). Social dynamics: Emergence of language. Nature Physics, 3, 758-760.10.1038/nphys770
    Search in Google Scholar
  24. MacWhinney, B. (2005). The emergence of linguistic form in time. Connection Sci­ence, 17 (3-4), 191-211.10.1080/09540090500177687
    Search in Google Scholar
  25. McFarland, D.H. (2001). Respiratory markers of conversational interaction. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44, 128-143.10.1044/1092-4388(2001/012)
    Search in Google Scholar
  26. Nomikou, I., Szufnarowska, J., & Rohlfing, K. J. (submitted). Educating attention: Recruiting, maintaining and framing eye-contact in early natural mother-infant interactions.
    Search in Google Scholar
  27. Paradowski, M. & Jonak, L. (2012). Diffusion of linguistic innovation as social co­ordination. Psychology of Language and Communication, 16 (2), 53-64.
    Search in Google Scholar
  28. Pattee, H.H. (1969). How does a molecule become a message? Developmental Biol­ogy Supplement, 3, 1-16.10.1016/B978-0-12-395541-8.50006-9
    Search in Google Scholar
  29. Pattee, H.H. (1982). Cell psychology: An evolutionary approach to the symbol-matter problem. Cognition and Brain Theory, 5 (4), 325-341.
    Search in Google Scholar
  30. Pattee, H.H. (1987) Instabilities and information in biological self-organization. In F.E. Yates (Ed.), Self-organizing systems. The emergence of order (pp. 325-338). New York: Plenum.10.1007/978-1-4613-0883-6_18
    Search in Google Scholar
  31. Pickering, M.J. & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 169-225.10.1017/S0140525X04000056
    Search in Google Scholar
  32. Pickering, M.J. & Garrod, S. (in press). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
    Search in Google Scholar
  33. Polanyi, M. (1968). Life’s irreducible structure. Science, 160, 1308-1312.10.1126/science.160.3834.1308
    Search in Google Scholar
  34. Ra̹czaszek-Leonardi, J. (2009). Symbols as constraints: the structuring role of dynamics and self-organization in natural language. Pragmatics and Cognition, 17 (3), 653-676.10.1075/pc.17.3.09ras
    Search in Google Scholar
  35. Ra̹czaszek-Leonardi, J. (2010). Multiple time-scales of language dynamics: An ex­ample from psycholinguistics. Ecological Psychology, 22, 4, 269-285.10.1080/10407413.2010.517111
    Search in Google Scholar
  36. Ra̹czaszek-Leonardi, J. (in press). Language as a system of replicable constraints. In H.H. Pattee, J. Ra̹czaszek-Leonardi (Eds.), Laws, language and life: Howard Pattee’s classic papers on the physics of symbols. Springer.
    Search in Google Scholar
  37. Ra̹czaszek-Leonardi, J. & Cowley, S.J. (2012). The evolution of language as controlled collectivity. Interaction Studies, 13 (1), 1-16.
    Search in Google Scholar
  38. Ra̹czaszek-Leonardi, J. & Kelso, J.A.S. (2008) Reconciling symbolic and dynamic aspects of language: Toward a dynamic psycholinguistics. New Ideas in Psy­chology, 26, 193-207.10.1016/j.newideapsych.2007.07.003
    Search in Google Scholar
  39. Roberts, S., & Winters, J. (2012). Social structure and language structure: The new nomothetic approach. Psychology of Language and Communication, 16 (2), 11-34.10.2478/v10057-012-0008-6
    Search in Google Scholar
  40. Schegloff, E.A. (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interac­tion. In E. Ochs, E.A. Schegloff, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 52-133). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  41. Shockley, K., Santana, M.-V., & Fowler, C.A. (2003). Mutual interpersonal postural constraints are involved in cooperative conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 29 (2), 326-332.10.1037/0096-1523.29.2.326
    Search in Google Scholar
  42. Sinha, C. (2009). Language as biocultural niche and social institution. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics (pp. 289-310). Am­sterdam: John Benjamins.
    Search in Google Scholar
  43. Smith, K., Brighton, H., & Kirby, S. (2002). Language evolution in a multi-agent model: The cultural emergence of compositional structure. Retrieved from: <http://www3>.isrl.illinois.edu/ junwang4/langev/localcopy/pdf/smith02languageEvolution.pdf
    Search in Google Scholar
  44. Smith, K., Brighton, H., & Kirby, S. (2003). Complex systems in language evolu­tion: The cultural emergence of compositional structure. Advances in Complex Systems, 6, 537-558.10.1142/S0219525903001055
    Search in Google Scholar
  45. Steels, L. (2006). Experiments on the emergence of human communication. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 347-349.10.1016/j.tics.2006.06.002
    Search in Google Scholar
  46. Steels, L. (2011). Modeling the cultural evolution of language. Physics of Life Re­views, 8, 339-356.10.1016/j.plrev.2011.10.014
    Search in Google Scholar
  47. Steels, L. & Belpaeme, T. (2005). Coordinating perceptually grounded categories through language: A case study for colour. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 469-489.10.1017/S0140525X05000087
    Search in Google Scholar
  48. Tabor, W. (1994). Syntactic innovation: A connectionist model. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.
    Search in Google Scholar
  49. Tabor, W. (1995). Lexical change as nonlinear interpolation. In J.D. Moore & J.F. Lehman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th Annual Cognitive Science Confer­ence (pp. 242-247). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    Search in Google Scholar
  50. Tognoli, E., Lagarde, J., DeGuzman, G.C., & Kelso, J.A.S. (2007). The phi complex as a neuromarker of human social coordination. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 104, 8190-8195.10.1073/pnas.0611453104
    Search in Google Scholar
  51. Trevarthen, C. & Aitken, K.J. (2001). Infant intersubjectivity: Research, theory and clinical application. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42 (1), 3-48.10.1111/1469-7610.00701
    Search in Google Scholar
  52. Trevarthen, C. & Daniel, S. (2005). Disorganized rhythm and synchrony: Early signs of autism and Rett syndrome. Brain & Development, 27, 25-34.10.1016/j.braindev.2005.03.016
    Search in Google Scholar
  53. Turing, A.M. (1952). The chemical basis of morphogenesis. Philosophical Transac­tions Royal Society of London B, 237, 37-72.
    Search in Google Scholar
  54. Tylen, K., Fusaroli, R. & Raczaszek-Leonardi, J. (in press). Dialogue as interpersonal synergy. New Ideas in Psychology.
    Search in Google Scholar
  55. Wacewicz, S. & Żywiczyński, P. (2012). Human Honest Signalling and Nonverbal Communication. Psychology of Language and Communication, 16 (2), 32-52.10.2478/v10057-012-0009-5
    Search in Google Scholar
  56. Wygotski, L.S. (1930/2006). Narzędzie i znak w rozwoju dziecka. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. English translation: Tool and symbol in child development. In R. van der Veer & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1994. Available at: <http://www.marxists.org/archive/>vygotsky/works/1934/tool-symbol.htm
    Search in Google Scholar
  57. Zinken, J. (2008). The metaphor of ‘linguistic relativity’. History and Philosophy of Psychology, 10 (2), 1-10.10.53841/bpshpp.2008.10.2.1
    Search in Google Scholar
  58. Zinken, J., Ogiermann, E. (2011). How to propose an action as objectively necessary: The case of Polish trzeba x (‘one has to x’). Research on Language and Social Interaction, 44 (3), 263-287.10.1080/08351813.2011.591900
    Search in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10057-012-0007-7 | Journal eISSN: 2083-8506 | Journal ISSN: 1234-2238
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 79 - 88
Published on: Dec 28, 2012
Published by: Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year
Keywords:
theory of language,
computer simulation,
language as coordination
Related subjects:
Social sciences,
Psychology,
Applied psychology

© 2012 Joanna Rączaszek-Leonardi, published by Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Volume 16 (2012): Issue 2 (December 2012)Next article