MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The ontogeny and phylogeny of non‐verbal deixis*

2009· book-chapter· en· W196916121 on OpenAlexaff
David A. Leavens, Timothy P. Racine, William D. Hopkins

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2009
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicBiochemical Analysis and Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeixisBipedalismLinguisticsPsychologyCognitive scienceBiologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is widely reported that our nearest living relatives, the great apes, lack a "declarative" mode of communication. There are few reports of any ape, regardless of rearing history, explicitly informing another about a state of the world as an apparent end in itself; see, e.g., Tomasello (2006). Historically, the term "declarative" has been used to classify a particular form of sentence or linguistic communication. However, the use of this concept to describe non-verbal communication stems from the introduction by Bates, Camaioni, and Volterra (1975) of the term "proto-declarative" to describe pointing by human babies with the apparent goal of fostering a state of shared apprehension of distant events or objects with a communicative partner. But a declaration is a linguistic act; it is therefore not immediately clear if the term should be applied to non-verbal communicative behaviour by either nonhuman primates or preverbal humans (Leavens 2004a; Leavens & Hopkins 1998; Racine 2005; Susswein & Racine in press-a). And apes in captivity adopt numerous non-verbal deictic behaviours, including manual pointing. Although observations of manual pointing are limited almost entirely to captive great ape populations, recent studies indicate that other manifestations of non-verbal deixis, such as directed scratching (Pika & Mitani 2006), may be much more common in wild ape populations than heretofore appreciated. Although older children and perhaps some enculturated apes occasionally point to share experience as an end in at itself, here we argue that pointing, and other non-verbal deictic behaviours, serve fundamentally instrumental functions (Racine, Leavens, Susswein & Wereha in press). As a result, we will further argue that the cognitive origins of non-verbal deictic acts are similar, regardless of the ostensible motivation of the signaler. To do so, we review research on deixis in the great apes, discuss the distinction between imperative and declarative communication in greater detail and then consider the meaning of proto-declarative pointing. We conclude that epigenetically heritable caregiving environments of hominins, probably beginning in the Plio-Pleistocene, foster manual pointing in early infancy (Davidson 1997; Leavens, Hopkins & Bard 2005a) and implicate an interaction of hominoid cognitive capacities with hominin-unique features of early infancy. Hominins were, thus, pre-adapted for one aspect of the faculty of language in the broad sense: joint attention (Hauser, Chomsky, & Fitch 2002).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.869

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicBiochemical Analysis and Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207