2012 | 16 | 2 | 79-88
Article title

Types of Integration in a Theory of Language

Title variants
Languages of publication
In the face of the complexity of language as an object of study, it becomes crucial for researchers who investigate its various facets to communicate and to understand each-others’ terminology, methods and results. The feasibility and utility of striving for the elegance of formal models of isolated aspects of the linguistic system (for example, set of generative rules in an individual’s head) are called into question: a theory of language needs to account for how it functions in multiple systems and on multiple time-scales. This short introduction to the special issue on Language as Social Coordination situates works in this issue on the map of collective effort to formulate such a theory. It is also a reflection on the form of a theory of language that could integrate this variety of data and results.
Physical description
  • 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.
  • Auvray, M., Lenay, C., & Stewart, J. (2009). Perceptual interactions in a minimalist environment. New Ideas in Psychology, 27, 79-97.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Cangelosi, A. (2010). Grounding language in action and perception: From cognitive agents to humanoid robots. Physics of Life Reviews, 7 (2), 139-151.
  • Chomsky, N. (2011). Language and other cognitive systems. What is special about language? Language Learning and Development, 7, 263-278.
  • Cohn, M.A., Mehl, M.R., & Pennebaker, J.W. (2004). Linguistic markers of psychologi­cal change surrounding September 11, 2001. Psychological Science, 15, 687-693.[Crossref]
  • Cowley, S.J. (2004). Contextualizing bodies: How human responsiveness constrains distributed cognition. Language Sciences, 26, 565-591.[Crossref]
  • 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.
  • Dumas, G., Nadel, J., Soussignan, R., Martinerie, J., & Garnero, L. (2010). Inter-Brain Synchronization during Social Interaction. PLoS ONE, 5 (8), e12166.
  • Fay, N., Garrod, S., Roberts, L.L., & Swoboda, N. (2010). The interactive evolution of human communication systems. Cognitive Science, 34, 351-386.[Crossref]
  • Fusaroli, R. & Tylén, K. (2012). Carving Language for Social Interaction: a dynamic approach. Interaction studies, 13 (1), 103-123.
  • Galantucci, B. (2005). An experimental study of the emergence of human commu­nication systems. Cognitive Science, 29 (5), 737-767.[Crossref]
  • Galantucci, B. & Garrod, S. (2011). Experimental semiotics: A review. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5:11. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2011.00011[Crossref]
  • Gleason, J.B. & Ratner, N.B. (1997). Psycholinguistics, 2nd edition. New York: Har- court Brace.
  • Hodges, B.H. (2007). Values define fields: The intentional dynamics of driving, car­rying, leading, negotiating, and conversing. Ecological Psychology, 19, 153-178.
  • Kelso, J.A.S. (1995). Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behavior. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.[Crossref]
  • Leonardi, G. (2012). The study of language and conversation with recurrence analysis methods. Psychology of Language and Communication, 16 (2), 87-105.
  • Loreto, V. & Steels, L. (2007). Social dynamics: Emergence of language. Nature Physics, 3, 758-760.[Crossref]
  • MacWhinney, B. (2005). The emergence of linguistic form in time. Connection Sci­ence, 17 (3-4), 191-211.
  • McFarland, D.H. (2001). Respiratory markers of conversational interaction. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44, 128-143.[Crossref]
  • Nomikou, I., Szufnarowska, J., & Rohlfing, K. J. (submitted). Educating attention: Recruiting, maintaining and framing eye-contact in early natural mother-infant interactions.
  • Paradowski, M. & Jonak, L. (2012). Diffusion of linguistic innovation as social co­ordination. Psychology of Language and Communication, 16 (2), 53-64.
  • Pattee, H.H. (1969). How does a molecule become a message? Developmental Biol­ogy Supplement, 3, 1-16.
  • Pattee, H.H. (1982). Cell psychology: An evolutionary approach to the symbol-matter problem. Cognition and Brain Theory, 5 (4), 325-341.
  • 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.
  • Pickering, M.J. & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 169-225.
  • Pickering, M.J. & Garrod, S. (in press). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
  • Polanyi, M. (1968). Life’s irreducible structure. Science, 160, 1308-1312.[Crossref]
  • 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.[Crossref]
  • Ra̹czaszek-Leonardi, J. (2010). Multiple time-scales of language dynamics: An ex­ample from psycholinguistics. Ecological Psychology, 22, 4, 269-285.
  • 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.
  • Ra̹czaszek-Leonardi, J. & Cowley, S.J. (2012). The evolution of language as controlled collectivity. Interaction Studies, 13 (1), 1-16.[Crossref]
  • 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.
  • Roberts, S., & Winters, J. (2012). Social structure and language structure: The new nomothetic approach. Psychology of Language and Communication, 16 (2), 11-34.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Smith, K., Brighton, H., & Kirby, S. (2002). Language evolution in a multi-agent model: The cultural emergence of compositional structure. Retrieved from: <http://www3> junwang4/langev/localcopy/pdf/smith02languageEvolution.pdf
  • 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.
  • Steels, L. (2006). Experiments on the emergence of human communication. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 347-349.
  • Steels, L. (2011). Modeling the cultural evolution of language. Physics of Life Re­views, 8, 339-356.
  • Steels, L. & Belpaeme, T. (2005). Coordinating perceptually grounded categories through language: A case study for colour. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 469-489.
  • Tabor, W. (1994). Syntactic innovation: A connectionist model. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Trevarthen, C. & Aitken, K.J. (2001). Infant intersubjectivity: Research, theory and clinical application. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42 (1), 3-48.[Crossref]
  • Trevarthen, C. & Daniel, S. (2005). Disorganized rhythm and synchrony: Early signs of autism and Rett syndrome. Brain & Development, 27, 25-34.[Crossref]
  • Turing, A.M. (1952). The chemical basis of morphogenesis. Philosophical Transac­tions Royal Society of London B, 237, 37-72.
  • Tylen, K., Fusaroli, R. & Raczaszek-Leonardi, J. (in press). Dialogue as interpersonal synergy. New Ideas in Psychology.
  • Wacewicz, S. & Żywiczyński, P. (2012). Human Honest Signalling and Nonverbal Communication. Psychology of Language and Communication, 16 (2), 32-52.
  • 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: <>vygotsky/works/1934/tool-symbol.htm
  • Zinken, J. (2008). The metaphor of ‘linguistic relativity’. History and Philosophy of Psychology, 10 (2), 1-10.
  • 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.
  • ---
Document Type
Publication order reference
YADDA identifier
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.