Search results for 'Universal Grammar' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Sort by:
See also:
  1. Stephen Crain & Paul M. Pietroski (2001). Nature, Nurture, and Universal Grammar. Linguistics and Philosophy 24 (2):139-186.score: 240.0
    In just a few years, children achieve a stable state of linguistic competence, making them effectively adults with respect to: understanding novel sentences, discerning relations of paraphrase and entailment, acceptability judgments, etc. One familiar account of the language acquisition process treats it as an induction problem of the sort that arises in any domain where the knowledge achieved is logically underdetermined by experience. This view highlights the cues that are available in the input to children, as well as childrens skills (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Humphrey P. Polanen Van Petel (2006). Universal Grammar as a Theory of Notation. Axiomathes 16 (4):460-485.score: 240.0
    What is common to all languages is notation, so Universal Grammar can be understood as a system of notational types. Given that infants acquire language, it can be assumed to arise from some a priori mental structure. Viewing language as having the two layers of calculus and protocol, we can set aside the communicative habits of speakers. Accordingly, an analysis of notation results in the three types of Identifier, Modifier and Connective. Modifiers are further interpreted as Quantifiers and (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Raul Corazzon, Linguistic Relativism (Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis) Vs. Universal Grammar.score: 180.0
    Language and Ontology: Linguistic Relativism (Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis) vs. Universal Grammar Universal Ontology vs. Ontological Relativity Semiotics and Ontology: Annotated Bibliography of John Deely. First part: 1965-1998 Annotated Bibliography of John Deely. Second part: 1999-2010 The Rediscovery of John Poinsot (John of St. Thomas).
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Paul Pietrowski (2001). Nature, Nurture and Universal Grammar. Linguistics and Philosophy 24 (2):139 - 186.score: 180.0
    In just a few years, children achieve a stable state of linguistic competence, making them effectively adults with respect to: understanding novel sentences, discerning relations of paraphrase and entailment, acceptability judgments, etc. One familiar account of the language acquisition process treats it as an induction problem of the sort that arises in any domain where the knowledge achieved is logically underdetermined by experience. This view highlights the 'cues' that are available in the input to children, as well as children's skills (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Adele E. Goldberg (2008). Universal Grammar? Or Prerequisites for Natural Language? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31 (5):522-523.score: 180.0
    This commentary aims to highlight what exactly is controversial about the traditional Universal Grammar (UG) hypothesis and what is not. There is widespread agreement that we are not born that language universals exist, that grammar exists, and that adults have domain-specific representations of language. The point of contention is whether we should assume that there exist unlearned syntactic universals that are arbitrary and specific to Language.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Stevan Harnad (2008). Why and How the Problem of the Evolution of Universal Grammar (UG) is Hard. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31 (5):524-525.score: 180.0
    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?
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Julia Herschensohn (1998). Universal Grammar and the Critical Age. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (4):611-612.score: 180.0
    Differences of opinion between Epstein, Flynn & Martohardjono (1996) and some commentators can be traced to different interpretations of Universal Grammar (UG) form or strategy. Potential full access to the form of linguistic universals in second language acquisition may be distinguished from access to UG strategy, but Epstein et al.'s dismissal of the Critical Age Hypothesis clouds their central argument.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Gita Martohardjono, Samuel David Epstein & Suzanne Flynn (1998). Universal Grammar: Hypothesis Space or Grammar Selection Procedures? Is UG Affected by Critical Periods? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (4):612-614.score: 180.0
    Universal Grammar (UG) can be interpreted as a constraint on the form of possible grammars (hypothesis space) or as a constraint on acquisition strategies (selection procedures). In this response to Herschensohn we reiterate the position outlined in Epstein et al. (1996a, r), that in the evaluation of L2 acquisition as a UG- constrained process the former (possible grammars/ knowledge states) is critical, not the latter. Selection procedures, on the other hand, are important in that they may have a (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Michael Tomasello (2009). Universal Grammar is Dead. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32 (5):470-471.score: 180.0
    The idea of a biologically evolved, universal grammar with linguistic content is a myth, perpetuated by three spurious explanatory strategies of generative linguists. To make progress in understanding human linguistic competence, cognitive scientists must abandon the idea of an innate universal grammar and instead try to build theories that explain both linguistic universals and diversity and how they emerge.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Aarne Ranta (2009). Type Theory and Universal Grammar. Philosophia Scientiae:115-131.score: 180.0
    The paper takes a look at the history of the idea of universal grammar and compares it with multilingual grammars, as formalized in the Grammatical Framework, GF. The constructivist idea of formalizing math- ematics piece by piece, in a weak logical framework, rather than trying to reduce everything to one single strong theory, is the model that guides the development of grammars in GF.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Giorgio Sandri (1987). Strategies in Universal Grammar: The Case of Meaning Postulates in Classical Montague Grammar. In D. D. Buzzetti & M. Ferriani (eds.), Speculative Grammar, Universal Grammar, and Philosophical Analysis of Language. John Benjamins. 42--229.score: 180.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Derek C. Penn, Keith J. Holyoak & Daniel J. Povinelli (2009). Universal Grammar and Mental Continuity: Two Modern Myths. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32 (5):462-464.score: 180.0
    In our opinion, the discontinuity between extant human and nonhuman minds is much broader and deeper than most researchers admit. We are happy to report that Evans & Levinson's (E&L's) target article strongly corroborates our unpopular hypothesis, and that the comparative evidence, in turn, bolsters E&L's provocative argument. Both a Universal Grammar and the between human and nonhuman minds turn out to be modern myths.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Jim Vernon (2007). Universal Grammar. The Owl of Minerva 39 (1-2):1-24.score: 174.0
    In this paper, through Hegel’s account of the predicative judgment in the Greater Logic, I develop an immanent, presuppositionless deduction ofgrammatical form from the very idea of language in general. In other words, I argue that Hegel’s account of the judgment can be read as a demonstrationof a truly universal (rather than empirically “common” or “general”) grammar through which any and all determinate thought must be expressed. In so doing, I seek to resolve the problem that linguistic contingency (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. 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..score: 162.0
    The contributions to this volume are concerned with questions of form, function, and genesis of canonical switch-reference systems.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Shane Nicholas Glackin (2011). Universal Grammar and the Baldwin Effect: A Hypothesis and Some Philosophical Consequences. Biology and Philosophy 26 (2):201-222.score: 156.0
    Grammar is now widely regarded as a substantially biological phenomenon, yet the problem of language evolution remains a matter of controversy among Linguists, Cognitive Scientists, and Evolutionary Theorists alike. In this paper, I present a new theoretical argument for one particular hypothesis—that a Language Acquisition Device of the sort first posited by Noam Chomsky might have evolved via the so-called Baldwin Effect . Close attention to the workings of that mechanism, I argue, helps to explain a previously mysterious feature (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Daniel Vanderveken (forthcoming). Speech Act Theory and Universal Grammar. Manuscrito.score: 156.0
    I will argue that the logical form of illocutionary acts imposes certain formal constraints on the logical structure of a possible natural language as well as on the mind of competent speakers. In particular, certain syntactic, semantic and pragmatic features are universal because they are indispensable. Moreover, in order to perform and understand illocutionary acts, competent speakers and hearers must have certain mental states and abilities which are in general traditionally related to the faculty of reason. (edited).
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Nicholas Evans & Stephen C. Levinson (2009). With Diversity in Mind: Freeing the Language Sciences From Universal Grammar. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32 (5):472-492.score: 156.0
    Our response takes advantage of the wide-ranging commentary to clarify some aspects of our original proposal and augment others. We argue against the generative critics of our coevolutionary program for the language sciences, defend the use of close-to-surface models as minimizing cross-linguistic data distortion, and stress the growing role of stochastic simulations in making generalized historical accounts testable. These methods lead the search for general principles away from idealized representations and towards selective processes. Putting cultural evolution central in understanding language (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Hagit Borer (1996). Access to Universal Grammar: The Real Issues. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 19 (4):718-720.score: 156.0
    Issues concerning UG access for L2 acquisition as formulated by Epstein et al. are misleading as well as poorly discussed. UG accessibility can only be fully evaluated with respect to the steady state gram mar reached by the learner. The steady state for LI learners is self evidently the adult grammar in the speech community. For L2 learners, however, the steady state is not obvious. Yet, without its clear characterization, debates concerning stages of L2 acquisition and direct and indirect (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. R. Montague (1970). Universal Grammar. Theoria 36 (3):373--398.score: 150.0
  20. Per-Kristian Halvorsen & William A. Ladusaw (1979). Montague's 'Universal Grammar': An Introduction for the Linguist. [REVIEW] Linguistics and Philosophy 3 (2):185 - 223.score: 150.0
  21. James H. Bunn (2000). Universal Grammar or Common Syntax? A Critical Study of Jackendoff's Patterns in the Mind. Minds and Machines 10 (1):119-128.score: 150.0
  22. Norbert Hornstein (1995). Putting Truth Into Universal Grammar. Linguistics and Philosophy 18 (4):381 - 400.score: 150.0
  23. Derek Bickerton (2000). Broca's Demotion Does Not Doom Universal Grammar. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (1):25-25.score: 150.0
    Despite problems with statistical significance, ancillary hypotheses, and integration into an overall view of cognition, Grodzinsky's demotion of Broca's area to a mechanism for tracking moved constituents is intrinsically plausible and fits a realistic picture of how syntax works.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Shalom Lappin, Machine Learning Theory and Practice as a Source of Insight Into Universal Grammar.score: 150.0
    In this paper, we explore the possibility that machine learning approaches to naturallanguage processing being developed in engineering-oriented computational linguistics may be able to provide specific scientific insights into the nature of human language. We argue that, in principle, machine learning results could inform basic debates about language, in one area at least, and that in practice, existing results may offer initial tentative support for this prospect. Further, results from computational learning theory can inform arguments carried on within linguistic theory (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Shalom Lappin with S. Shieber, Machine Learning Theory and Practice as a Source of Insight Into Universal Grammar.score: 150.0
  26. Antonio Benítez-Burraco & Cedric Boeckx (forthcoming). Universal Grammar and Biological Variation: An EvoDevo Agenda for Comparative Biolinguistics. Biological Theory.score: 150.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. StuartmShieber, Machine Learning Theory and Practice as a Source of Insight Into Universal Grammar.score: 150.0
    In this paper, we explore the possibility that machine learning approaches to naturallanguage processing being developed in engineering-oriented computational linguistics may be able to provide specific scientific insights into the nature of human language. We argue that, in principle, machine learning results could inform basic debates about language, in one area at least, and that in practice, existing results may offer initial tentative support for this prospect. Further, results from computational learning theory can inform arguments carried on within linguistic theory (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Joan Bresnan (1994). Locative Inversion and the Architecture of Universal Grammar. In Stephen Everson (ed.), Language. Cambridge University Press. 72--131.score: 150.0
  29. Noam Chomsky (2001). Beyond "Universal Grammar". Sign Systems Studies 29 (1):367-368.score: 150.0
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Ellen Woolford (1984). Why Creoles Won't Reveal the Properties of Universal Grammar. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7 (2):211.score: 150.0
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Michael G. Barnhart (2000). Thinking Between Words, a Review of Meditative Reason: Toward Universal Grammar and Between Worlds: The Emergence of Global Reason, by Ashok K. Gangadean. Philosophy East and West 50:285-290.score: 150.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Christina Behme (2010). Does Kinship Terminology Provide Evidence for or Against Universal Grammar? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (5):381 - 382.score: 150.0
    Jones introduces an intricate machinery of kin classification that overcomes limitations of previous accounts. I question whether such a machinery is plausible. Because individuals never need to learn the entire spectrum of kin terminology, they could rely on data-driven learning. The complexity of Jones's machinery for kin classification casts doubt on the existence of innate structures that cover the complete linguistic domain.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Derek Bickerton (1996). A Dim Monocular View of Universal-Grammar Access. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 19 (4):716-717.score: 150.0
    This target article's handling of theory and data and the range of evidence surveyed for its main contention fall short of normal BBS standards. However, the contention itself is reasonable and can be supported if one rejects the metaphor for linguistic competence and accepts that are no more than the way the brain does language.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Joan Bresnan (1981). An Approach to Universal Grammar and the Mental Representation of Language. Cognition 10 (1-3):39-52.score: 150.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Morten H. Christiansen & Nick Chater (2009). The Myth of Language Universals and the Myth of Universal Grammar. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32 (5):452.score: 150.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Samuel David Epstein, Suzanne Flynn & Gita Martohardjono (1996). Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition: The Null Hypothesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 19 (4):746.score: 150.0
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Charles Henry (1995). Universal Grammar. Communication and Cognition-Artificial Intelligence 12 (1-2):45-62.score: 150.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Jan Koster (1989). Does Universal Grammar Exist? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12 (2):347.score: 150.0
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Jeffrey Lidz, Henry Gleitman & Lila Gleitman (2003). Understanding How Input Matters: Verb Learning and the Footprint of Universal Grammar. Cognition 87 (3):151-178.score: 150.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Jeffrey Lidz & Lila R. Gleitman (2004). Yes, We Still Need Universal Grammar. Cognition 94 (1):85-93.score: 150.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Philip Lieberman (1996). Universal Grammar and Critical Periods: A Most Amusing Paradox. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 19 (4):735.score: 150.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Víctor Manuel Longa Martínez (2005). Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar, de Lydia White. Teorema: Revista Internacional de Filosofía 24 (2):134-138.score: 150.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Stephen Crain & Paul Pietroski (2003). Innateness and Universal Grammar. In L. Nadel (ed.), Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science. Nature Publishing Group.score: 150.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Robert Freidin (1996). Adult Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 19 (4):725.score: 150.0
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Adele E. Goldberg (2004). But Do We Need Universal Grammar? Comment on Lidz Et Al. (2003). Cognition 94 (1):77-84.score: 150.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Adele E. Goldberg (2004). But Do We Need Universal Grammar? Comment On. Cognition 94 (1):77-84.score: 150.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Adele F. Goldberg (2004). Comment On: But Do We Need Universal Grammar? By Ameka, FK Et Al. Cognition 94 (1):77-84.score: 150.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Grammaticalization by Paul J. Hopper, Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Frantisek Lichtenberk (1994). HOPPER, PAUL J., and SANDRA A. THOMPSON. 1984. The Discourse Basis for Lexical Categories in Universal Grammar. Lg. 60.703-52. STEELE, SUSAN M. 1978. The Category AUX as a Language Universal. Universals of Human Language, Vol. By Joseph Greenberg, Charles Ferguson, and Edith Moravcsik, 7-45. Stanford: Stanford University Press. [REVIEW] In Stephen Everson (ed.), Language. Cambridge University Press.score: 150.0
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. T. Jaemsae (1999). Stephen Crain & Rosalind Thornton, Investigations in Universal Grammar. Journal of Consciousness Studies 6:137-137.score: 150.0
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Lyle Jenkins (1984). Pidgins, Creoles, and Universal Grammar. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7 (2):196.score: 150.0
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 1000