Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T21:48:25.274Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Complex First? On the Evolutionary and Developmental Priority of Semantically Thick Words

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Markus Werning
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Complex-First Paradox consists in a set of collectively incompatible but individually well-confirmed propositions that regard the evolution, development, and cortical realization of the meanings of concrete nouns. Although these meanings are acquired earlier than those of other word classes, they are semantically more complex and their cortical realizations more widely distributed. For a neurally implemented syntax-semantics interface, it should thus take more effort to establish a link between a concept and its lexical expression. However, in ontogeny and phylogeny, capabilities demanding more effort, ceteris paribus, develop and evolve later than those demanding less effort. The paradox points to an explanatory deficit in linguistic theory.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 77 , Issue 5 , December 2010 , pp. 1096 - 1108
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

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

‡

Research in the context of this paper has been supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, grant FOR 600.

References

Barrett, M. 1995. “Early Lexical Development.” In The Handbook of Child Language, ed. Fletcher, P. and MacWhinney, B., 362–92. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. 1992. “Frames, Concepts, and Conceptual Fields.” In Frames, Fields, and Contrasts, ed. Lehrer, A. and Kittay, E. F., 21–74. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W.. 2005. “Situated Conceptualization.” In Handbook of Categorization in Cognitive Science, ed. Cohen, H. and Lefebvre, C., 619–50. St. Louis: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Berlin, B., and Kay, P.. 1969. Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Block, N. 1994. “Advertisement for a Semantics for Psychology.” In Mental Representation, ed. Stich, S. and Warfield, T., 81–141. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bloom, P. 2000. How Children Learn the Meanings of Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. 1928. Der logische Aufbau der Welt. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
Clifton, C., and Ferreira, F.. 1987. “Modularity in Sentence Comprehension.” In Modularity in Knowledge Representation and Natural-Language Understanding, ed. Garfield, J. L., 277–90. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Crair, M. C., Ruthazer, E. S., Gillespie, D. C., and Stryker, M. P.. 1997. “Ocular Dominance Peaks at Pinwheel Center Singularities of the Orientation Map in Cat Visual Cortex.” Journal of Neurophysiology 77:3381–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dixon, R. M. W. 1999. “Adjectives.” In Concise Encyclopedia of Grammatical Categories, ed. Brown, K., Miller, J., and Asher, R. E., 1–8. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Dretske, F. 1981. Knowledge and the Flow of Information. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Felleman, D. J., and van Essen, D. C.. 1991. “Distributed Hierarchical Processing in the Primate Cerebral Cortex.” Cerebral Cortex 1:1–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fodor, J. A., and Lepore, E.. 1991. “Why Meaning (Probably) Isn't Conceptual Role.” Mind and Language 6:329–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friederici, A. D. 2002. “Towards a Neural Basis of Auditory Sentence Processing.” Trends in Cognitive Science 6:78–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Givon, T. 1970. “Notes on the Semantic Structure of English Adjectives.” Language 46:816–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingram, D. 1989. First Language Acquisition: Method, Description and Explanation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, A. 2007. “The Representation of Object Concepts in the Brain.” Annual Review of Psychology 58:25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, A., Wiggs, C. L., Ungerleider, L., and Haxby, J. V.. 1996. “Neural Correlates of Category-Specific Knowledge.” Nature 379:649–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Millikan, R. G. 1998. “A Common Structure for Concepts of Individuals, Stuffs and Real Kinds: More Mama, More Milk, and More Mouse.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21:55–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mithun, M. 2000. “Noun and Verb in Iroquoian Languages: Multi-categorisation from Multiple Criteria.” In Approaches to the Typology of Word Classes, ed. Vogel, P. M. and Comrie, B., 397–420. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, W., and Werning, M.. 2007. “Conceptual Fingerprints: Lexical Decomposition by Means of Frames: A Neuro-cognitive Model.” In Conceptual Structures: Knowledge Architectures for Smart Applications, ed. Priss, U., Polovina, S., and Hill, R., 415–28. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, 4604. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Piccinini, G., and Scott, S.. 2006. “Splitting Concepts.” Philosophy of Science 73:390–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulvermüller, F. 1999. “Words in the Brain's Language.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22:253–79.Google ScholarPubMed
Pulvermüller, F.. 2005. “Brain Mechanisms Linking Language and Action.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 6:576–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rappelsberger, P., Weiss, S., and Schack, B.. 2000. “Coherence and Phase Relations between EEG Traces Recorded from Different Locations.” In Time and the Brain, ed. Miller, R., 297–330. Conceptual Advances in Brain Research. Amsterdam: Harwood.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzolatti, G., and Craighero, L.. 2004. “The Mirror-Neuron System.” Annual Review of Neuroscience 27:169–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruhlen, M. 1994. On the Origin of Languages: Studies in Linguistic Taxonomy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Schnitzler, A., Timmermann, L., and Gross, J.. 2006. “Physiological and Pathological Oscillatory Networks in the Human Motor System.” Journal of Physiology 99:3–7.Google ScholarPubMed
Singer, W. 1999. “Neuronal Synchrony: A Versatile Code for the Definition of Relations?” Neuron 24:49–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stephan, A. 1999. “Are Animals Capable of Concepts?” Erkenntnis 51:583–96.Google Scholar
Vihman, M. 1996. Phonological Development: The Origins of Language in the Child. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Werning, M. 2005a. “Right and Wrong Reasons for Compositionality.” In The Compositionality of Meaning and Content, Vol. 1, Foundational Issues, ed. Werning, M., Machery, E., and Schurz, G., 285–309. Frankfurt: Ontos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werning, M.. 2005b. “The Temporal Dimension of Thought: Cortical Foundations of Predicative Representation.” Synthese 146:203–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar