Was necessary first to devise a complexity metric, for the purpose ofĭelineating and quantifying those elements that constitute complexity in Refine a measure of working memory and thirdly to determine the relationshipīetween the ability to produce complexity in spontaneous speech and working Valid instrument to measure complexity in language production secondly, to This study was intended firstly, to devise an objective and
That ability varies from one individual to another in the comprehension ofĬomplexity in language, and that this spectrum of ability is correlated with working Sophisticated language may therefore function as an honest advertisement ofīiological fitness, potentially explaining why articulate, eloquent speech isĬomplexity, working memory and social intelligence Intelligence requires a well-functioning brain, and most deleterious genetic Sees as the basis for human sexual selection for ‘good genes’, because creative Memory is a vital substrate of ‘creative intelligence’ which Geoffrey Miller Syntactic complexity allowed by their working memory capacity. People spontaneously tend to produce language at approximately the maximum For instance, the ability of bonobos and chimpanzees toĬommunicate with humans is enhanced by visual symbol boards, which may function This may imply an evolutionaryĮxpansion of working memory as the crucial element enabling the evolution of Spearman's rank order correlation: 0.820, p = 0.001Ĭorrelation between CMS and ILC score is consistent with syntactical complexityīeing constrained by working memory capacity. Positive correlation between CMS and each of the four components of the ILC,Ĭonsistent with internal validity of the ILC. Working memory capacity (CMS) (see Figure). Showed a significant positive correlation between language complexity (ILC) and
Test (recall of specific words from increasing numbers of sentences, followedīy a judgement task to interfere with rehearsal). (AMIPB) subtest (recall of a short story) and a modified Working Memory Span Standardized scores of the Adult Memory and Information Processing Battery Speech was recorded and transcribed.Ĭapacity was measured using a Combined Memory Score (CMS) which averaged the Language was elicited using standard stimuli such as asking for explanations ofįactual information, telling a story in response to pictures, encouraging adverb phrases, 3.īritish-English speakers were studied (25 male, 25 female age 22-66). Was defined as the combined frequency of occurrence per 100 intelligible
‘factual’ communications with socially-inflected interpretations. Modify the obligatory syntactical elements, potentially enriching basic Was conceptualized in terms of ‘optional’ syntactical elements, which serve to (ILC) as an objective, linguistically-principled and plausible measure of We devised the Index of Language Complexity Methods of measuring linguistic complexity lack objectivity, reliability or aĬonvincing theoretical rationale. This is consistent with human linguistic performanceīeing a sexually-selected trait ‘advertising’ the genetic fitness of the Report that linguistic complexity correlates significantly and positively with The frequency of ‘optional’ syntactical elements of spoken human language, and Presents a new objective measure of linguistic complexity based on measuring Intelligence” (University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK 2002) by Christina Susan Complexity of speech as measured by the Index of Language Complexity (ILC)īruce G Charlton of PhD thesis “Language complexity, working memory and social
0 kommentar(er)
