Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T23:19:47.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The reality of a universal language faculty

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

Steven Pinker  and
Ray Jackendoff
Steven Pinker
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138; [email protected]://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu
Ray Jackendoff
Affiliation:
Center for Cognitive Studies, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155. [email protected]://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/incbios/RayJackendoff/index.htm Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM 87501
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While endorsing Evans & Levinson's (E&L's) call for rigorous documentation of variation, we defend the idea of Universal Grammar as a toolkit of language acquisition mechanisms. The authors exaggerate diversity by ignoring the space of conceivable but nonexistent languages, trivializing major design universals, conflating quantitative with qualitative variation, and assuming that the utility of a linguistic feature suffices to explain how children acquire it.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 32 , Issue 5 , October 2009 , pp. 465 - 466
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

Culicover, P. W. (1999) Syntactic nuts: Hard cases in syntax. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, P. W. & Jackendoff, R. (2005) Simpler syntax. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. (1978) Response cries. Language 54(4):787–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1997) The architecture of the language faculty. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2002) Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, B. (1993) English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Li, P. & Gleitman, L. R. (2002) Turning the tables: Language and spatial reasoning. Cognition 83(3):265–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marcus, G. F. (2001) The algebraic mind: Reflections on connectionism and cognitive science. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989) Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (2007) The stuff of thought: Language as a window into human nature. Viking.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. & Jackendoff, R. (2005) The faculty of language: What's special about it? Cognition 95:201–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. & Ullman, M. T. (2002a) Combination and structure, not gradedness, is the issue. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6(11):472–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. & Ullman, M. T. (2002b) The past and future of the past tense. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6(11):456–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinker, S. & Ullman, M. T. (2003) Beyond one model per phenomenon. Trends in Cognitive Science 7(3):108–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed