Graduate studies at Western
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31 (5):524-525 (2008)
|Abstract||Christiansen & Chater (C&C) suggest that language is an organism, like us, and that our brains were not selected for Universal Grammar (UG) capacity; rather, languages were selected for learnability with minimal trial-and-error experience by our brains. This explanation is circular: Where did our brain's selective capacity to learn all and only UG-compliant languages come from?|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Bernard Molyneux (2011). On The Infinitely Hard Problem Of Consciousness. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 89 (2):211 - 228.
Gregory R. Peterson (2009). A Hard Problem Indeed. Zygon 44 (1):19-29.
Humphrey P. Polanen Van Petel (2006). Universal Grammar as a Theory of Notation. Axiomathes 16 (4):460-485.
Michael A. Arbib (2003). Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (6):668-669.
John Haiman & Pamela Munro (eds.) (1983). Switch-Reference and Universal Grammar: Proceedings of a Symposium on Switch Reference and Universal Grammar, Winnipeg, May 1981. J. Benjamins Pub. Co..
Aarne Ranta (2009). Type Theory and Universal Grammar. Philosophia Scientiae:115-131.
Ray Jackendoff (2003). Précis of Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution,. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (6):651-665.
Stevan Harnad (2000). Correlation Vs. Causality: How/Why the Mind-Body Problem is Hard. Journal of Consciousness Studies 7 (4):54-61.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads29 ( #48,114 of 739,406 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,269 of 739,406 )
How can I increase my downloads?