Symbols, Stimulus Equivalence and the Origins of Language
Behavior and Philosophy 29:221 - 244 (2001)
| Abstract | Recent interest in the origins of language, within the strongly cognitive field of Evolutionary Psychology, has predominantly focused upon the origins of syntax (cf. Hurford, Knight, & Studdert-Kennedy, 1998). However, Ullin Place's (2000a) theory of the gestural origins of language also addresses the more fundamental issue of the antecedents of symbols, and does so from a behaviorist perspective, stressing the importance of the peculiarly human ability to form stimulus equivalence classes. The rejection by many developmental psychologists of a behaviorist account of language acquisition has led to a modular and distinctly nativist psychology of language (cf. Pinker, 1994, 1997; Pinker & Bloom, 1990). Little has been said about the role or nature of learning mechanisms in the evolution of language. Although Place does not provide any defense of a behaviorist linguistic ontogeny, this is no reason to rule out his phylogenetic speculations. We aim to outline Place's evolutionarily parsimonious view of symbol origins and their relation to stimulus equivalence. We applaud Ullin Place for bringing symbols into focus within the broader discipline of language origins and suggest that he has raised an interesting set of questions to be discussed in future work. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,705 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesUllin T. Place (1995). Symbolic Processes and Stimulus Equivalence. Behavior and Philosophy 23:13 - 30.
Christina Behme & H. S. (2008). Language Learning in Infancy: Does the Empirical Evidence Support a Domain Specific Language Acquisition Device? Philosophical Psychology 21 (5):641 – 671.
Angelo Cangelosi (2001). Evolution of Communication and Language Using Signals, Symbols and Words. [Journal (on-Line/Unpaginated)].
G. E. Zuriff (1976). Stimulus Equivalence, Grammar, and Internal Structure. Behaviorism 4:43-52.
Angelo Cangelosi, Alberto Greco & Stevan Harnad (2002). Symbol Grounding and the Symbolic Theft Hypothesis. In A. Cangelosi & D. Parisi (eds.), Simulating the Evolution of Language. Springer-Verlag.
Susan Schneider (2009). The Nature of Symbols in the Language of Thought. Mind and Language 24 (5):523-553.
Willem Zuidema & Bart de Boer (2003). How Did We Get From There to Here in the Evolution of Language? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (6):694-695.
Ray E. Jennings & Joe J. Thompson (2012). The Biology of Language and the Epigenesis of Recursive Embedding. Interaction Studies 13 (1):80-102.
W. Noble (2002). The Origins of Complex Language. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 80 (2):249 – 250.
Kim Sterelny (2004). Language, Modularity, and Evolution. In David Papineau & Graham MacDonald (eds.), Teleosemantics: New Philosophical Essays. Oup.
Susan Schneider (forthcoming). The Nature of Primitive Symbols in the Language of Thought. Mind and Language.
Stephen Laurence & Eric Margolis (2001). The Poverty of the Stimulus Argument. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52 (2):217-276.
Stevan Harnad (2002). Symbol Grounding and the Origin of Language. In Matthias Scheutz (ed.), Computationalism: New Directions. MIT Press.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2011-05-29Total downloads4 ( #178,800 of 549,196 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,397 of 549,196 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
