Ontogeny, phylogeny, and the relational reinterpretation hypothesis

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31 (2):138-139 (2008)
  Copy   BIBTEX


If our knowledge of human cognition were based solely on research with participants younger than the age of 2 years, there would be no basis for the relational reinterpretation hypothesis, and Darwin's continuity theory would be safe as houses. Because many of the shortcomings cited apply to human infants, we propose how a consideration of cognitive development would inform the relational reinterpretation hypothesis



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,100

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The reinterpretation hypothesis: Explanation or redescription?José Luis Bermúdez - 2008 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31 (2):131-132.
Language, tools, and brain revisited.Patricia M. Greenfield - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (1):159-163.
How plausible is the motherese hypothesis?Paul Bouissac - 2004 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (4):506-507.
Out of their heads: Turning relational reinterpretation inside out.Louise Barrett - 2008 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31 (2):130-131.
Core knowledge.Elizabeth S. Spelke - 2000 - American Psychologist 55 (11):1233-1243.


Added to PP

48 (#332,295)

6 months
4 (#795,160)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?