Cognition 95 (2):201-236 (2005)
We examine the question of which aspects of language are uniquely human and uniquely linguistic in light of recent suggestions by Hauser, Chomsky, and Fitch that the only such aspect is syntactic recursion, the rest of language being either speciﬁc to humans but not to language (e.g. words and concepts) or not speciﬁc to humans (e.g. speech perception). We ﬁnd the hypothesis problematic. It ignores the many aspects of grammar that are not recursive, such as phonology, morphology, case, agreement, and many properties of words. It is inconsistent with the anatomy and neural control of the human vocal tract. And it is weakened by experiments suggesting that speech perception cannot be reduced to primate audition, that word learning cannot be reduced to fact learning, and that at least one gene involved in speech and language was evolutionarily selected in the human lineage but is not speciﬁc to recursion. The recursion-only claim, we suggest, is motivated by Chomsky’s recent approach to syntax, the Minimalist Program, which de-emphasizes the same aspects of language. The approach, however, is sufﬁciently problematic that it cannot be used to support claims about evolution. We contest related arguments that language is not an adaptation, namely that it is “perfect,” non-redundant, unusable in any partial form, and badly designed for..
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
Natural Language and Natural Selection.Steven Pinker & Paul Bloom - 1990 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13 (4):707-27.
The Motor Theory of Speech Perception Revised.Alvin M. Liberman & Ignatius G. Mattingly - 1985 - Cognition 21 (1):1-36.
Towards a Functional Neuroanatomy of Speech Perception.Gregory Hickok & David Poeppel - 2000 - Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4 (4):131-138.
Constructions: A New Theoretical Approach to Language.Adele E. Goldberg - 2003 - Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7 (5):219-224.
Generativity Within Language and Other Cognitive Domains.Paul Bloom - 1994 - Cognition 51 (2):177-189.
Citations of this work BETA
The Myth of Language Universals: Language Diversity and its Importance for Cognitive Science.Nicholas Evans & Stephen C. Levinson - 2009 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32 (5):429-448.
Darwin's Mistake: Explaining the Discontinuity Between Human and Nonhuman Minds.Derek C. Penn, Keith J. Holyoak & Daniel J. Povinelli - 2008 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31 (2):109-130.
Language as Shaped by the Brain.Morten H. Christiansen & Nick Chater - 2008 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31 (5):489-509.
The Learnability of Abstract Syntactic Principles.Amy Perfors, Joshua B. Tenenbaum & Terry Regier - 2011 - Cognition 118 (3):306-338.
Language as an Instrument of Thought.Eran Asoulin - 2016 - Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 1 (1):1-23.
Similar books and articles
The Evolution of Language: A Comparative Review. [REVIEW]W. Tecumseh Fitch - 2005 - Biology and Philosophy 20 (2-3):193-203.
Appendix. The Minimalist Program.Noam Chomsky, Marc Hauser, Fitch D. & W. Tecumseh - 2005 - Philosophical Explorations.
The Evolution of the Language Faculty: Clarifications and Implications.Fitch Tecumseh, W. Marc & D. Hauser Noam Chomsky - 2005 - Cognition 97:179-210.
The Faculty of Language: What is It, Who has It, and How Did It Evolve?Hauser Marc, D. Chomsky, Noam Fitch & W. Tecumseh - 2002 - Science 298 (22):1569-1579.
Cognitive Modularity in the Light of the Language Faculty.Johan De Smedt - 2009 - Logique Et Analyse 208:373-387.
The Nature of the Language Faculty and its Implications for Evolution of Language (Reply to Fitch, Hauser, and Chomsky).Steven Pinker - 2005 - Cognition 97 (2):211-225.
The Nature of the Language Faculty and its Implications for Evolution of Language (Reply to Fitch, Hauser, and Chomsky).Ray Jackendoff - 2005 - Cognition 97 (2):211-225.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads173 ( #26,360 of 2,169,384 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #345,461 of 2,169,384 )
How can I increase my downloads?