What is simple is actually quite complex: A critical note on terminology in the domain of language and communication.

IF 1.1 4区 心理学 Q4 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Limor Raviv, Louise R Peckre, Cedric Boeckx
{"title":"What is simple is actually quite complex: A critical note on terminology in the domain of language and communication.","authors":"Limor Raviv,&nbsp;Louise R Peckre,&nbsp;Cedric Boeckx","doi":"10.1037/com0000328","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>On the surface, the fields of animal communication and human linguistics have arrived at conflicting theories and conclusions with respect to the effect of social complexity on communicative complexity. For example, an increase in group size is argued to have opposite consequences on human versus animal communication systems: although an increase in human community size leads to some types of language simplification, an increase in animal group size leads to an increase in signal complexity. But do human and animal communication systems really show such a fundamental discrepancy? Our key message is that the tension between these two adjacent fields is the result of (a) a focus on different levels of analysis (namely, signal variation or grammar-like rules) and (b) an inconsistent use of terminology (namely, the terms \"simple\" and \"complex\"). By disentangling and clarifying these terms with respect to different measures of communicative complexity, we show that although animal and human communication systems indeed show some contradictory effects with respect to signal variability, they actually display essentially the same patterns with respect to grammar-like structure. This is despite the fact that the definitions of complexity and simplicity are actually aligned for signal variability, but diverge for grammatical structure. We conclude by advocating for the use of more objective and descriptive terms instead of terms such as \"complexity,\" which can be applied uniformly for human and animal communication systems-leading to comparable descriptions of findings across species and promoting a more productive dialogue between fields. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":54861,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Comparative Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Comparative Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/com0000328","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

On the surface, the fields of animal communication and human linguistics have arrived at conflicting theories and conclusions with respect to the effect of social complexity on communicative complexity. For example, an increase in group size is argued to have opposite consequences on human versus animal communication systems: although an increase in human community size leads to some types of language simplification, an increase in animal group size leads to an increase in signal complexity. But do human and animal communication systems really show such a fundamental discrepancy? Our key message is that the tension between these two adjacent fields is the result of (a) a focus on different levels of analysis (namely, signal variation or grammar-like rules) and (b) an inconsistent use of terminology (namely, the terms "simple" and "complex"). By disentangling and clarifying these terms with respect to different measures of communicative complexity, we show that although animal and human communication systems indeed show some contradictory effects with respect to signal variability, they actually display essentially the same patterns with respect to grammar-like structure. This is despite the fact that the definitions of complexity and simplicity are actually aligned for signal variability, but diverge for grammatical structure. We conclude by advocating for the use of more objective and descriptive terms instead of terms such as "complexity," which can be applied uniformly for human and animal communication systems-leading to comparable descriptions of findings across species and promoting a more productive dialogue between fields. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

简单的东西实际上很复杂:语言和交流领域术语的关键注释。
从表面上看,关于社会复杂性对交际复杂性的影响,动物交际领域和人类语言学领域已经得出了相互矛盾的理论和结论。例如,人们认为群体规模的增加会对人类和动物的交流系统产生相反的影响:尽管人类群体规模的增加会导致某些类型的语言简化,但动物群体规模的增加会导致信号复杂性的增加。但是,人类和动物的交流系统真的表现出如此根本的差异吗?我们的关键信息是,这两个相邻领域之间的紧张关系是(a)关注不同层次的分析(即信号变化或类似语法的规则)和(b)术语使用不一致(即术语“简单”和“复杂”)的结果。通过将这些术语从不同的交流复杂性度量中分离出来并加以澄清,我们表明,尽管动物和人类的交流系统在信号变异性方面确实表现出一些相互矛盾的影响,但它们实际上在类似语法的结构方面表现出本质上相同的模式。尽管事实上,复杂性和简单性的定义实际上是一致的信号变异性,但分歧的语法结构。最后,我们提倡使用更客观和描述性的术语,而不是像“复杂性”这样的术语,因为“复杂性”可以统一应用于人类和动物的交流系统,从而导致跨物种发现的可比描述,并促进领域之间更有成效的对话。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
7.10%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Comparative Psychology publishes original research from a comparative perspective on the behavior, cognition, perception, and social relationships of diverse species.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信