Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Universal Grammar? Or prerequisites for natural language?

  • Adele E. Goldberg (a1)
Abstract
Abstract

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 “blank slates,” 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.

Copyright
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

N. C. Ellis (2002) Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(2):143–88.

M. D. Hauser , N. Chomsky & W. T. Fitch (2002) The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298(5598):1569–79.

F. J. Newmeyer (2005) Possible and probable languages: A generative perspective on linguistic typology. Oxford University Press.

S. Pinker & R. Jackendoff (2005) The faculty of language: What's special about it? Cognition 95(2):201–36.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Behavioral and Brain Sciences
  • ISSN: 0140-525X
  • EISSN: 1469-1825
  • URL: /core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×