Universal Grammar? Or prerequisites for natural language? | Behavioral and Brain Sciences | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

Abstract

This commentary aims to highlight what exactly is controversial about the traditional Universal Grammar (UG) hypothesis and what is not. There is widespread agreement that we are not born “blank slates,” that language universals exist, that grammar exists, and that adults have domain-specific representations of language. The point of contention is whether we should assume that there exist unlearned syntactic universals that are arbitrary and specific to Language.

Type

Open Peer Commentary

Copyright

Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

References

Bates, E. (1993) Modularity, domain specificity and the development of language. Technical Report No. 9305. Center for Research in Language, UCSD.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Deacon, T. W. (1997) The symbolic species: The co-evolution of language and the brain. W. W. Norton/Penguin.Google Scholar

de Saussure, F., (1916/1959) Course in general linguistics, trans. Baskin, W., 1959 edition.Philosophical Library.Google Scholar

Ellis, N. C. (2002) Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(2):143–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Elman, J. L., Bates, E. A., Johnson, M. H., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D. & Plunkett, K. (1996) Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. (2002) Ethnosyntax. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Goldberg, A. E. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N. & Fitch, W. T. (2002) The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298(5598):1569–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Newmeyer, F. J. (2005) Possible and probable languages: A generative perspective on linguistic typology. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pinker, S. & Jackendoff, R. (2005) The faculty of language: What's special about it? Cognition 95(2):201–36.Google Scholar