Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T09:00:11.656Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

For universals (but not finite-state learning) visit the zoo

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

Geoffrey K. Pullum  and
Barbara C. Scholz
Geoffrey K. Pullum
Affiliation:
School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 9AD, Scotland, United Kingdom. [email protected]://ling.ed.ac.uk/[email protected]://www.philosophy.ed.ac.uk/people/honorary-fellows/barbara-scholz.html
Barbara C. Scholz
Affiliation:
School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 9AD, Scotland, United Kingdom. [email protected]://ling.ed.ac.uk/[email protected]://www.philosophy.ed.ac.uk/people/honorary-fellows/barbara-scholz.html
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Evans & Levinson's (E&L's) major point is that human languages are intriguingly diverse rather than (like animal communication systems) uniform within the species. This does not establish a “myth” about language universals, or advance the ill-framed pseudo-debate over universal grammar. The target article does, however, repeat a troublesome myth about Fitch and Hauser's (2004) work on pattern learning in cotton-top tamarins.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 32 , Issue 5 , October 2009 , pp. 466 - 467
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arnold, K. & Zuberbühler, K. (2006) Language evolution: Semantic combinations in primate calls. Nature 441(7091):303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fitch, W. T. & Hauser, M. D. (2004) Computational constraints on syntactic processing in a nonhuman primate. Science 303(5656):377–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friederici, A. (2004) Processing local transitions versus long-distance syntactic hierarchies. Trends in Cognitive Science 8:245–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joos, M., ed. (1966) Readings in linguistics I, 2nd edition. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kasher, A. (1991) The Chomskyan turn. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. K. & Rogers, J. (2006) Animal pattern learning experiments: Some mathematical background. Unpublished ms, University of Edinburgh. Available at: http://ling.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/MonkeyMath.pdf.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. K. & Scholz, B. C. (2007) Systematicity and natural language syntax. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 7(21):375–402.Google Scholar
Rogers, J. & Pullum, G. K. (2007) Aural pattern recognition experiments and the subregular hierarchy. Paper presented at the Mathematics of Language 10 Conference, UCLA, July 2007. Available at: http://ling.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/MoL10paper.pdf.Google Scholar
Smith, N. (1999) Chomsky: Ideas and ideals. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar