Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:51:12.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is nativism sufficient?[*]

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Martin D. S. Braine
Martin D. S. Braine*
Affiliation:
New York University
*
Address for correspondence: Department of Psychology, New York University, 6 Washington Place, 8th floor, New York, NY 10003, USA. Email: mdsb@ xp.psych.nyu.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The past and present state of the empiricism–nativism issue is analysed. Empiricist philosophical doctrine (‘no innate ideas’) distinguished idea from structure or mechanism. However, Chomsky's conception of innate linguistic universals erased this distinction. The elimination left would-be empiricists without a coherent and defensible position. I argue that the issue remains alive primarily because of tension between two scientific tasks that face students of development. One is to discover what is cognitively and linguistically primitive, a task that encourages nativism. However, nativism is ultimately unsatisfactory because it systematically neglects the other task, which is to account for development, including the emergence of postulated innate primitives. To account for such primitives, it is necessary to relate them to particular central nervous System structures in such a way as to explain how the structure has the particular cognitive effects that define the primitive. That is likely to be difficult, and I show how the study of learning – much neglected in recent years – can help by reducing the number and type of innate primitives whose origin must be explained in that way.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , February 1994 , pp. 9 - 31
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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.)

Footnotes

[*]

This article is revised from a keynote address, entitled ‘Whatever happened to empiricism?’ given to the Developmental Section of the British Psychological Society in September, 1991. The underlying work was supported by grants from NSF (BNS-8409252) and NICHD (HD20807, Project 2). I am grateful to Patricia Brooks, Jacqueline J. Goodnow, and an anonymous reviewer for comments on previous drafts. David O'Brien was an important colleague in the work on reasoning.

References

REFERENCES

Borer, H. & Wexler, K. (1987). The maturation of syntax. In Roeper, T. & Williams, E. (eds), Parameter setting. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. (1971). On two types of models of the internalization of grammars. In Slobin, D. I. (ed.), The ontogenesis of grammar: a theoretical symposium. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. (1987). What is learned in acquiring word classes – a step towards an acquisition theory. In MacWhinney, B. (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. (1988). Introduction. In Levy, Y., Schlesinger, I. M. & Braine, M. D. S. (eds), Categories and processes of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. (1990). The ‘natural logic’ approach to reasoning. In Overton, W. F. (ed.), Reasoning, necessity, and logic: developmental perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. (1992). What sort of innate structure is needed to ‘bootstrap’ into syntax? Cognition 45, 77–100.Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. (1993). The mental logic and how to discover it. In Macnamara, J. & Reyes, G. E. (eds), The logical foundations of cognition. Oxford: O.U.P.Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S., Brooks, P. J., Cowan, N., Samuels, M. C. & Tamis-LeMonda, C. (in press). The development of categories at the semantics/syntax interface. Cognitive Development.Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S., Reiser, B. J. & Rumain, B. (1984). Some empirical justification for a theory of natural propositional logic. In Bower, G. H. (ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: advances in research and theory. Vol. 18. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Brooks, P. J., Braine, M. D. S., Catalano, L., Brody, R. E. & Sudhalter, V. (1993). Acquisition of gender-like subclasses in an artificial language: the contribution of phonological markers to learning. Journal of Memory & Language 32, 76–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of B. F. Skinner Verbal Behavior. In Language 35, 26–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1966). Cartesian linguistics. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Felix, S. W. (1991). Language acquisition as a maturational process. In Weissenborn, J., Goodluck, H. & Roeper, T. (eds), Theoretical issues in language acquisition: continuity and change in development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1975). The language of thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hinde, R. A. (1966). Animal behavior: a synthesis of ethology and comparative psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1977). X-bar syntax: a study of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1978). The interplay between syntax, semantics, and phonology in language acquisition processes. In Campbell, R. & Smith, P. (eds), Recent advances in the psychology of language. New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lehrman, D. S. (1953). A critique of Konrad Lorenz's theory of instinctive behavior. Quarterly Review of Biology 28, 337–63.Google Scholar
Levy, Y. (1983). The acquisition of Hebrew plurals: the case of the missing gender category. Journal of Child Language 10, 107–21.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1978). The acquisition of morphophonology. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 43, No. 1.Google Scholar
Matthews, R. J. (1989). The plausibility of rationalism. In Matthews, R. J. & Demopoulos, W. (eds), Learnability and linguistic theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. (First published 1936.)Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: the acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rosenzweig, M. R. (1966). Environmental complexity, cerebral change, and behavior. American Psychologist 21, 321–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenzweig, M. R. (1970). Evidence for anatomical and chemical changes in the brain during primary learning. In Pribram, K. H. & Broadbent, D. E. (eds), The biology of memory. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, I. M. (1979). Cognitive structures and semantic deep structures: the case of the instrumental. Journal of Linguistics 15, 307–24.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, I. M. (1982). Steps to language: toward a theory of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, I. M. (1988). The origin of relational categories. In Levy, Y., Schlesinger, I. M. & Braine, M. D. S. (eds), Categories and processes in language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schneirla, T. C. (1952). A consideration of some conceptual trends in comparative psychology. Psychological Bulletin 49, 559–97.Google Scholar
Schneirla, T. C. (1966). Behavioral development and comparative psychology. Quarterly Review of Biology 41, 283–302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 20, 410–33.Google Scholar
Zubin, D. A. & Kopcke, K. M. (1981). Gender: a less than arbitrary grammatical category. In Hendrick, R., Masek, C. & Miller, M. F. (eds), Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar