4 - On modularity and method

Summary

Introduction

In the two preceding chapters, we have explored in a preliminary way two different paths to understanding the human ‘language faculty’ (Chomsky, 1965; Jackendoff, 1997) or our capacity for spoken language communication. The linguistic approach seeks to isolate and describe the elements of a system of spoken communication by studying varieties of linguistic expressions in the world's languages and human language in general. The neuropathological approach examines types of language breakdown in response to brain damage of various kinds. It is hoped that the search for parallels or correspondences in these two very different domains will yield empirical constraints on a theory of language that could not otherwise be discovered if these two strands of inquiry were conducted in isolation from one another. For example, a fundamental distinction that grammarians draw between lexis and rule in the architecture of the language faculty may turn out to have a correspondence – or not – in the classification of language pathologies, reflecting the organization of language capacities in the human brain. We have already provided you with some classical findings from these two domains, which provides at least a foundation for speculation and further inquiry.

However, it is time to draw some critical methodological distinctions in the interests of making our search for correspondences and a cross-disciplinary theory of language more precise. The distinctions that we draw here will anticipate issues discussed more fully in subsequent chapters.