scholarly journals The Language Faculty – Mind or Brain?

2009 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Torben Thrane
Keyword(s):  
Language Faculty

scholarly journals Introducing the Special Issue: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Code-Switching

Languages ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 19
Author(s):  
Draško Kašćelan ◽  
Margaret Deuchar
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Code Switching ◽  
Human Language ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Language Faculty ◽  
Valuable Source ◽  
Human Language Faculty

Research on code-switching was the province of specialists in linguistics alone in the latter part of the twentieth century and is still a valuable source of insights into the human language faculty [...]

THE LOGICAL STRUCTURE OF LINGUISTIC THEORY: البنية المنطقية للنظرية اللسانية: ستيفن ر. أندرسون، جامعة ييل

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (13) ◽  
pp. 112-90
Author(s):  
Ranya Ahmed Rashid Shaheen, Abdelrahman Mudawi Abdelrahim Al Ranya Ahmed Rashid Shaheen, Abdelrahman Mudawi Abdelrahim Al
Keyword(s):  
Natural Language ◽  
Logical Structure ◽  
Linguistic Theory ◽  
Baldwin Effect ◽  
Language Faculty ◽  
Human Ability ◽  
External Forces ◽  
The Baldwin Effect ◽  
Communicative Abilities

The object of inquiry in Linguistics is the human ability to acquire and use a natural language, and the goal of linguistic theory is an explicit characterization of that ability. Looking at the communicative abilities of other species, it becomes clear that our linguistic ability is specific to our species, undoubtedly a product of our biology. But how do we go about determining the specifics of this Language faculty? _here are two primary ways in which we infer the nature of Language from the properties of individual languages: arguments from the Poverty of the Stimulus, and the search for universals that characterize every natural language. Arguments of the first sort are not easy to construct (though not as difficult as sometimes suggested), and apply only to a tiny part of Language as a whole. Arguments from universals or typological generalizations are also quite problematic. In phonology, morphology, and syntax, factors of historical development, functional underpinnings, limitations of the learning situation, among others conspire to compromise the explanatory value of arguments from observed cross-linguistic regularities. Confounding the situation is the likelihood that properties found across languages as a consequence of such external forces have been incorporated into the Language faculty evolutionarily through the ‘Baldwin Effect.’ _e conflict between the biologically based specificity of the human Language faculty and the difficulty of establishing most of its properties in a secure way cannot, however, be avoided by ignoring or denying the reality of either of its poles.

scholarly journals How culture and biology interact to shape language and the language faculty

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenny Smith
Keyword(s):  
Language Learning ◽  
Cultural Evolution ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Biological Evolution ◽  
Evolutionary Process ◽  
Evolutionary Models ◽  
Language Faculty ◽  
Repeated Cycle ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Precise Relationship

Recent work suggests that linguistic structure develops through cultural evolution, as a consequence of the repeated cycle of learning and use by which languages persist. This work has important implications for our understanding of the evolution of the cognitive basis for language: in particular, human language and the cognitive capacities underpinning it are likely to have been shaped by co-evolutionary processes, where the cultural evolution of linguistic systems is shaped by and in turn shapes the biological evolution of the capacities underpinning language learning. I review several models of this co-evolutionary process, which suggest that the precise relationship between evolved biases in individuals and the structure of linguistic systems depends on the extent to which cultural evolution masks or unmasks individual-level cognitive biases from selection. I finish by discussing how these co-evolutionary models might be extended to cases where the biases involved in learning are themselves shaped by experience, as is the case for language.

"Vale la pena di partecipare". Rčponse ŕ Francesco Ferretti

PARADIGMI ◽  
2009 ◽  
pp. 173-183
Author(s):  
Sylvain Auroux
Keyword(s):  
Evolutionary Psychology ◽  
Random Sample ◽  
Empirical Science ◽  
Language Faculty ◽  
Evolutionary Theories ◽  
Language Origin ◽  
The Status ◽  
The One

- F. Ferretti quotes a random sample of recent studies as proofs against my arguments, and makes no mention of the conspicuous failure of glottochronology, of the one-sided methods of Ruhlen's linguistic comparison, of the questionable corres - pondences of languages with populations genetics. He clearly passes over the second, epistemological, part of the book. In his exposition, the different planes of discussion are systematically mixed up and my arguments repeatedly misinterpreted. My Reply is focused on a few points. In particular: the import of evolutionary theories on discussions of language origin, the notion of a "faculty" or "instinct" of language, the status of linguistics as an empirical science, the relations of evolutionary psychology with sociobiology. Finally, I challenge F. Ferretti's assertion, that the refutation of naturalism must necessarily result in embracing idealism. Keywords: Comparativism, Language faculty, Language origin, Limits of linguistic reconstruction, Naturalism, Sociobiology.

The Siege of Paris

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Berwick ◽  
Noam Chomsky
Keyword(s):  
Specific Property ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Human Language ◽  
Language Faculty ◽  
Noam Chomsky ◽  
Species Specific ◽  
Human Language Faculty

In a response to Cedric Boeckx, Robert Berwick and Noam Chomsky defend and update their argument that the human language faculty is a species-specific property, with no known group differences and little variation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document