↓ Skip to main content

Simplicity and Specificity in Language: Domain-General Biases Have Domain-Specific Effects

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
15 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 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
Simplicity and Specificity in Language: Domain-General Biases Have Domain-Specific Effects
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01964
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer Culbertson, Simon Kirby

Abstract

The extent to which the linguistic system-its architecture, the representations it operates on, the constraints it is subject to-is specific to language has broad implications for cognitive science and its relation to evolutionary biology. Importantly, a given property of the linguistic system can be "specific" to the domain of language in several ways. For example, if the property evolved by natural selection under the pressure of the linguistic function it serves then the property is domain-specific in the sense that its design is tailored for language. Equally though, if that property evolved to serve a different function or if that property is domain-general, it may nevertheless interact with the linguistic system in a way that is unique. This gives a second sense in which a property can be thought of as specific to language. An evolutionary approach to the language faculty might at first blush appear to favor domain-specificity in the first sense, with individual properties of the language faculty being specifically linguistic adaptations. However, we argue that interactions between learning, culture, and biological evolution mean any domain-specific adaptations that evolve will take the form of weak biases rather than hard constraints. Turning to the latter sense of domain-specificity, we highlight a very general bias, simplicity, which operates widely in cognition and yet interacts with linguistic representations in domain-specific ways.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 90 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 29%
Student > Master 12 13%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 14 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Linguistics 37 41%
Psychology 18 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Neuroscience 3 3%
Computer Science 3 3%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 17 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 23 September 2022.
All research outputs
#2,102,323
of 25,139,853 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#4,236
of 33,944 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,796
of 407,221 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#90
of 444 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,139,853 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,944 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 407,221 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 444 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.