David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Biology and Philosophy 18 (1):41-52 (2003)
Nativists about syntactic processing have argued that linguisticprocessing, understood as the implementation of a rule-basedcomputational architecture, is spared in Williams syndrome, (WMS)subjects – and hence that it provides evidence for a geneticallyspecified language module. This argument is bolstered by treatingSpecific Language Impairments (SLI) and WMS as a developmental doubledissociation which identifies a syntax module. Neuroconstructivists haveargued that the cognitive deficits of a developmental disorder cannot beadequately distinguished using the standard gross behavioural tests ofneuropsychology and that the linguistic abilities of the WMS subject canbe equally well explained by a constructivist strategy of neurallearning in the individual, with linguisitic functions implemented in anassociationist architecture. The neuroconstructivist interpretation ofWMS undermines the hypothesis of a double dissociation between SLI andWMS, leaving unresolved the question of nativism about syntax. Theapparent linguistic virtuosity of WMS subjects is an artefact ofenhanced phonological processing, a fact which is easier to demonstratevia the associationist computational model embraced byneuroconstructivism
|Keywords||Brain Constructivism Language Nativism Neuroscience Science|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Philip S. Gerrans (2013). Imitation, Mind Reading, and Social Learning. Biological Theory 8 (1):20-27.
Victoria McGeer (2007). Why Neuroscience Matters to Cognitive Neuropsychology. Synthese 159 (3):347 - 371.
Claudia Lorena García (2007). Cognitive Modularity, Biological Modularity and Evolvability. Biological Theory: Integrating Development, Evolution and Cognition (KLI) 2 (1):62-73.
Claudia García (2007). Cognitive Modularity, Biological Modularity, and Evolvability. Biological Theory 2 (1):62-73.
Similar books and articles
William Ramsey & Stephen P. Stich (1990). Connectionism and Three Levels of Nativism. Synthese 82 (2):177-205.
Glen Hoffmann (2009). Nativism. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 9 (3):303-315.
Glen Hoffmann (2009). Nativism: In Defense of the Representational Interpretation. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 9 (27):303-315.
Robert J. Matthews (2006). The Case for Linguistic Nativism. In Robert J. Stainton (ed.), Contemporary Debates in Cognitive Science. Malden MA: Blackwell Publishing
Derek Bickerton (1997). Constructivism, Nativism, and Explanatory Adequacy. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (4):557-558.
Philip Gerrans (2002). Nativism, Neuroconstructivism, and Developmental Disorder. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (6):757-758.
David Pitt (2000). Nativism and the Theory of Content. Protosociology 14:222-239.
David G. Lockwood (2003). “Parallel Architecture” as a Variety of Stratificationalism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (6):686-687.
Tom Simpson (2005). Toward a Reasonable Nativism. In Peter Carruthers, Stephen Laurence & Stephen Stich (eds.), The Innate Mind: Structure and Contents. New York: Oxford University Press New York 1--122.
Shaun Nichols (2005). Innateness and Moral Psychology. In Peter Carruthers, Stephen Laurence & Stephen Stich (eds.), The Innate Mind: Structure and Contents. New York: Oxford University Press New York 353--369.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads84 ( #49,477 of 1,796,243 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #116,526 of 1,796,243 )
How can I increase my downloads?