↓ Skip to main content

Language Evolution: Why Hockett’s Design Features are a Non-Starter

Overview of attention for article published in Biosemiotics, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#18 of 234)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
116 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Language Evolution: Why Hockett’s Design Features are a Non-Starter
Published in
Biosemiotics, July 2014
DOI 10.1007/s12304-014-9203-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sławomir Wacewicz, Przemysław Żywiczyński

Abstract

The set of design features developed by Charles Hockett in the 1950s and 1960s remains probably the most influential means of juxtaposing animal communication with human language. However, the general theoretical perspective of Hockett is largely incompatible with that of modern language evolution research. Consequently, we argue that his classificatory system-while useful for some descriptive purposes-is of very limited use as a theoretical framework for evolutionary linguistics. We see this incompatibility as related to the ontology of language, i.e. deriving from Hockett's interest in language as a product rather than a suite of sensorimotor, cognitive and social abilities that enable the use but also acquisition of language by biological creatures (the faculty of language). After a reconstruction of Hockett's views on design features, we raise two criticisms: focus on the means at the expense of content and focus on the code itself rather than the cognitive abilities of its users. Finally, referring to empirical data, we illustrate some of the problems resulting from Hockett's approach by addressing three specific points-namely arbitrariness and semanticity, cultural transmission, and displacement-and show how the change of perspective allows to overcome those difficulties.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Unknown 114 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 25 22%
Student > Master 19 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 15%
Researcher 7 6%
Professor 7 6%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 23 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Linguistics 25 22%
Psychology 16 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 11%
Social Sciences 9 8%
Computer Science 5 4%
Other 26 22%
Unknown 22 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 June 2023.
All research outputs
#3,873,876
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Biosemiotics
#18
of 234 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,104
of 241,799 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biosemiotics
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 234 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 241,799 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.