Attention and the evolution of intentional communication
Ingar Brinck | Lund University
Intentional communication is perceptually based and about attentional objects. Three attention mechanisms are distinguished: scanning, attention attraction, and attention-focusing. Attention-focusing directs the subject towards attentional objects. Attention-focusing is goal-governed (controlled by stimulus) or goal-intended (under the control of the subject). Attentional objects are perceptually categorised functional entities that emerge in the interaction between subjects and environment. Joint attention allows for focusing on the same attentional object simultaneously (mutual object-focused attention), provided that the subjects have focused on each other beforehand (subject-subject attention). It results in intentional communication if the subjects attend to each other as subjects (i) capable of attending, and (ii) attending in a goal-intended way. Intentional communication is fundamentally imperative and adapted to action.
Published online: 21 June 2002
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.9.2.05bri
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.9.2.05bri
Cited by
Cited by 26 other publications
No author info given
2008. Reviews.
Theoria 71:3 ► pp. 263 ff. 
Blomberg, Olle
2018. We-Experiences, Common Knowledge, and the Mode Approach to Collective Intentionality.
Journal of Social Philosophy 49:1 ► pp. 183 ff.
Bortfeld, Heather & John S. Oghalai
2020. Joint Attention in Hearing Parent–Deaf Child and Hearing Parent–Hearing Child Dyads.
IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems 12:2 ► pp. 243 ff.
Brinck, Ingar & Christian Balkenius
2019. .
In 2019 Joint IEEE 9th International Conference on Development and Learning and Epigenetic Robotics (ICDL-EpiRob),
► pp. 31 ff.
Brinck, Ingar & Peter Gardenfors
2003. Co-operation and Communication in Apes and Humans.
Mind and Language 18:5 ► pp. 484 ff.
Brinck, Ingar & Rikard Liljenfors
2013. The Developmental Origin of Metacognition.
Infant and Child Development 22:1 ► pp. 85 ff.
Cochet, Hélène, Marianne Jover, Lucie Oger & Jacques Vauclair
2014. Morphological Differences Between Imperative and Declarative Pointing: Hand Shape, Arm Extension, and Body Posture.
Journal of Motor Behavior 46:4 ► pp. 223 ff.
Depowski, Nicole, Homer Abaya, John Oghalai & Heather Bortfeld
2015. Modality use in joint attention between hearing parents and deaf children.
Frontiers in Psychology 6
Devaine, Marie, Aurore San-Galli, Cinzia Trapanese, Giulia Bardino, Christelle Hano, Michel Saint Jalme, Sebastien Bouret, Shelly Masi, Jean Daunizeau & Jill O'Reilly
2017. Reading wild minds: A computational assay of Theory of Mind sophistication across seven primate species.
PLOS Computational Biology 13:11 ► pp. e1005833 ff.
Dunér, David
2014. Interstellar Intersubjectivity: The Significance of Shared Cognition for Communication, Empathy, and Altruism in Space.
In Extraterrestrial Altruism [The Frontiers Collection, ],
► pp. 141 ff.
ESTIGARRIBIA, BRUNO & EVE V. CLARK
2007. Getting and maintaining attention in talk to young children.
Journal of Child Language 34:4 ► pp. 799 ff.
GREEN, ADAM
2009. Reading the mind of God (without Hebrew lessons): Alston, shared attention, and mystical experience.
Religious Studies 45:4 ► pp. 455 ff.
Gärdenfors, Peter
2017. Demonstration and Pantomime in the Evolution of Teaching.
Frontiers in Psychology 8
Gärdenfors, Peter & Maja Brala-Vukanović
2018. Semantic domains of demonstratives and articles: A view of deictic referentiality explored on the paradigm of Croatian demonstratives.
Lingua 201 ► pp. 102 ff.
Gärdenfors, Peter, Ingar Brinck & Mathias Osvath
2012. The Tripod Effect: Co-evolution of Cooperation, Cognition and Communication.
In The Symbolic Species Evolved [Biosemiotics, 6],
► pp. 193 ff.
Halavais, Alexander
2013. Search and Networked Attention.
In A Companion to New Media Dynamics,
► pp. 247 ff.
Kuzminykh, Anastasia & Sean Rintel
2020. .
In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
► pp. 1 ff.
Leavens, David A., Jamie L. Russell & William D. Hopkins
2010. Multimodal communication by captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes).
Animal Cognition 13:1 ► pp. 33 ff.
Li, Liman Man Wai, Takahiko Masuda & Hajin Lee
2018. Low relational mobility leads to greater motivation to understand enemies but not friends and acquaintances.
British Journal of Social Psychology 57:1 ► pp. 43 ff.
Poggi, Isabella, Francesca D’Errico & Alessandro Vinciarelli
2012. Social signals: from theory to applications.
Cognitive Processing 13:S2 ► pp. 389 ff.
Ureña Gómez-Moreno, José Manuel
2019. The ‘Mimic’ or ‘Mimetic’ Octopus? A Cognitive-Semiotic Study of Mimicry and Deception in Thaumoctopus Mimicus.
Biosemiotics 12:3 ► pp. 441 ff.
Wang, Xun, Mary-Anne Williams, Peter Gardenfors, Jonathan Vitale, Shaukat Abidi, Benjamin Johnston, Benjamin Kuipers & Alan Huang
2014. .
In The 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication,
► pp. 174 ff.
Williams, Mary-Anne, Shaukat Abidi, Peter Gärdenfors, Xun Wang, Benjamin Kuipers & Benjamin Johnston
2013. Interpreting Robot Pointing Behavior.
In Social Robotics [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 8239],
► pp. 148 ff.
Wyman, Emily & Hannes Rakoczy
2011. Social Conventions, Institutions, and Human Uniqueness: Lessons from Children and Chimpanzees.
In Interdisciplinary Anthropology,
► pp. 131 ff.
Wyman, Emily, Hannes Rakoczy & Mike Tomasello
2013. Non-verbal communication enables children’s coordination in a “Stag Hunt” game.
European Journal of Developmental Psychology 10:5 ► pp. 597 ff.
Ćalasan, Slađana & Nadica Jovanović
2018. Contemporary knowledge of typical and atypical development of verbal communication.
Биомедицинска истраживања 9:2 ► pp. 207 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 january 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.