Cogprints

But What Have You Done for Us Lately?: Some Recent Perspectives on Linguistic Nativism

Green, Christopher D. and Vervaeke, John (1997) But What Have You Done for Us Lately?: Some Recent Perspectives on Linguistic Nativism. [Book Chapter]

Full text available as:

[img]HTML
53Kb

Abstract

The problem with many contemporary criticisms of Chomsky and linguistic nativism is that they are based upon features of the theory that are no longer germane; aspects that have either been superseded by more adequate proposals, or that have been dropped altogether under the weight of contravening evidence. In this paper, rather than rehashing old debates that are voluminously documented elsewhere, we intend to focus on more recent developments. To this end, we have put a premium on references from the 1990s and the latter half of the 1980s. First, we will describe exactly what is now thought to be innate about language, and why it is thought to be innate rather than learned. Second, we will examine the evidence that many people take to be the greatest challenge to the nativist claim: ape language. Third, we will briefly consider how an innate language organ might have evolved. Fourth we will look at how an organism might communicate without benefit of the innate language structure proposed by Chomsky, and examine a number of cases in which this seems to be happening. Finally we will try to sum up our claims and characterize what we believe will be the most fruitful course of debate for the immediate future.

Item Type:Book Chapter
Keywords:linguistics, nativism, Chomsky, ape language, creole, protolanguage, evolution
Subjects:Psychology > Cognitive Psychology
Computer Science > Language
Linguistics > Learnability
Psychology > Psycholinguistics
ID Code:1178
Deposited By:Green, Christopher D.
Deposited On:23 Feb 2001
Last Modified:11 Mar 2011 08:54

Commentary/Response Threads

References in Article

Select the SEEK icon to attempt to find the referenced article. If it does not appear to be in cogprints you will be forwarded to the paracite service. Poorly formated references will probably not work.

Bates, E. (1976). Language and context: Studies in the acquisition of pragmatics. New York:

Academic Press.

Bates, E., Thal, D., & Marchman, V. (1989). Symbols, and syntax: A Darwinian approach to language

development. In N. Krasnegor, D. Rumbaugh, M. Studdert-Kennedy, & R. Schiefelbusch (Eds.), The

biological foundations of language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Berwick, R. C. (1985). The acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Berwick, R. C. (1993). [Interview with Jay Ingram]. In The Talk Show. Program 2: Born to Talk.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

Bickerton, D. (1984). The language bioprogram hypothesis. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7,

173-221.

Bickerton, D. (1990). Language and species. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. J., & Austin, G. A. (1956). A study of thinking. New York: John Wiley &

Sons.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. (1988). Language and the problems of knowledge: The Managua lectures. Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. & Lasnik, H. (1993). The theory of principles and parameters. In J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow,

W. Sternfeld, & T. Vennemann (Eds.), Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research

(pp. 506-569). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Clark, A. (1993). Associative engines: Connectionism, concepts, and representational change.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Cook, V. J. (1988). Chomsky's universal grammar: An introduction. London: Blackwell.

Cowper, E. A. (1992). A concise introduction to syntactic theory: The government-binding approach.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Elman, J. (1991). Incremental learning, or the importance of starting small. (Tech. report 9101). San Diego:

University of California, Center for Research in Language.

Feldman, J. A. (1994, July). Structured connectionist models. Paper presented at the First International

Summer Institute for Cognitive Science, Buffalo, NY.

Gould, S. J. (1987). The limits of adaptation: Is language a spandrel of the human brain? Paper presented to

the Cognitive Science Seminar, Center for Cognitive Science, MIT.

Green, C. D. & Vervaeke J. (1997). The experience of objects and the objects of experience. Metaphor

and Symbolic Activity, 12, 3-17.

Grimshaw, G. M., Adelstein, A., Bryden, M. P., & MacKinnon, G. E. (1994, May). First language

acquisition in adolescence: A test of the critical period hypothesis. Poster presented at the conference

5th annual conference of Theoretical and Experimental Neuropsychology/Neuropsychologie Experimentale

et Theoreticale (TENNET), Montreal, Quebec.

Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and the evolution of society (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston:

Beacon Press. (Original work published 1976)

Harris, R. A. (1993). The linguistics wars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jackendoff, R. (1994). Patterns in the mind. New York: Basic Books.

Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A.

Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91-196). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lightfoot, D. (1991). How to set parameters: Arguments from language change. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press.

Muysken, P. (1988). Are creoles a special type of language? In Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, vol.

2. Edited by Frederick Newmeyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nolfi, S. & Parisi, D. (1991). Auto-teaching: Metworks that develop their own thaching input. (Tech report

PCIA91-03). Rome: Institute of Psychology, CNR.

Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York: Morrow.

Pinker, S. & Bloom, P. (1990). Natural selection and natural language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,

13, 707-784.

Pinker, S. & Prince, A. (1988). On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed

processing model of language acquisition. In S. Pinker & J. Mehler (Eds.), Connections and symbols (pp.

73-193). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Prince, A. & Smolensky, P. (in press). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative

grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Quartz, S. R. (1993). Neural networks, nativism, and the plausibility of constructivism. Cognition, 48,

223-242.

Radford, A. (1988). Transformational grammar: A first course. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Radford, A. (1990). Syntactic theory and the acquisition of language. London: Basil Blackwell.

Smolensky, P. (in press). Constituent structure and explanation in an integrated connectionist/symbolic

cognitive architecture. In C. Macdonald & G. Macdonald (Eds.), Connectionism: Debates on

psychological explanation. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. [Author's note: Published in 1995, pp. 223-290]

Terrace, H. S. (1979). Nim. New York: Knopf.

Vervaeke, J., Green, C. D., & Kennedy, J. M. (1993, May). Women, fire, and dangerous theories. Paper

presented at the Canadian Psychological Association Convention, Montreal. [Author's note: A longer

version of this paper was published in 1997 under the names of the first two authors in Metaphor and

Symbolic Activity, 12, 59-80.]

Wallman, Joel. (1992). Aping language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wason, P. C. & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1972). Psychology of reasoning: Structure and content.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Yamada, J. E. (1990). Laura: A case for the modularity of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Metadata

Repository Staff Only: item control page