ArticleWiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science2022
Event parsing and the origins of grammar.
Article in Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spontaneous Encoding of Event Roles in Hominids.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2025Article
- Humans and great apes visually track event roles in similar ways.PLoS biology · 2024Article
- Multi-level combinatoriality in magpie non-song vocalizations.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2023Article
- Transition to language: From agent perception to event representation.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science · 2022Article
- Event parsing and the origins of grammar.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
How did grammar evolve? Perhaps a better way to ask the question is what kind of cognition is needed to enable grammar. The present analysis departs from the observation that linguistic communication is structured in terms of agents and patients, a reflection of how humans see the world. One way to explore the origins of cognitive skills in humans is to compare them with primates. A first approach has been to teach great apes linguistic systems to study their production in subsequent conversations. This literature has revealed considerable semantic competences in great apes, but no evidence for a corresponding grammatical ability, at least in production. No ape has ever created a sentence with an underlying causal structure of agency and patienthood. A second approach has been to study natural communication in primates and other animals. Here, there is intermittent evidence of compositionality, for example, a capacity to perform operations on semantic units, but again no evidence for an ability to refer to the causal structure of events. Future research will have to decide whether primates and other animals are simply unable to see the world as casually structured the way humans do, or whether they are just unable to communicate causal structures to others. This article is categorized under: Cognitive Biology > Evolutionary Roots of Cognition Computer Science and Robotics > Artificial Intelligence Linguistics > Evolution of Language.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.