Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-72crv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T09:13:04.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Many important language universals are not reducible to processing or cognition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2016

David P. Medeiros ,
Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini  and
Thomas G. Bever
David P. Medeiros
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721-0028. medeiros@email.arizona.edu massimo@email.arizona.edu tgb@email.arizona.edu http://dingo.sbs.arizona.edu/~massimo/ http://dingo.sbs.arizona.edu/~tgb/
Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721-0028. medeiros@email.arizona.edu massimo@email.arizona.edu tgb@email.arizona.edu http://dingo.sbs.arizona.edu/~massimo/ http://dingo.sbs.arizona.edu/~tgb/
Thomas G. Bever
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721-0028. medeiros@email.arizona.edu massimo@email.arizona.edu tgb@email.arizona.edu http://dingo.sbs.arizona.edu/~massimo/ http://dingo.sbs.arizona.edu/~tgb/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Christiansen & Chater (C&C) ignore the many linguistic universals that cannot be reduced to processing or cognitive constraints, some of which we present. Their claim that grammar is merely acquired language processing skill cannot account for such universals. Their claim that all other universal properties are historically and culturally based is a nonsequitur about language evolution, lacking data.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 39 , 2016 , e86
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Arbib, M. A. (2012) How the brain got language: The mirror system hypothesis. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, M. C. (2008) The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. C. (2013) On agreement and its relationship to case: Some generative ideas and results. Lingua 130(June):14–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, E. & MacWhinney, B. (1982) Functionalist approaches to grammar. In: Language acquisition: The state of the art, ed. Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L., pp. 173–218. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Belletti, A., ed. (2004) Structures and beyond. The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 3. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Berwick, R. C., Chomsky, N. & Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (2013) Poverty of the stimulus stands: Why recent challenges fail. In: Rich languages from poor inputs, ed. Piattelli-Palmarini, M. & Berwick, R. C., pp. 19–42. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bever, T. (1970) The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In: Cognition and the development of language, ed. Hayes, J. R., pp. 279–362. Wiley.Google Scholar
Bever, T. G. (1975) Cerebral asymmetries in humans are due to the differentiation of two incompatible processes: Holistic and analytic. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 263(1):251–62.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2007) Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, M. H. & Chater, N. (2008) Language as shaped by the brain. Behavioral & Brain Sciences 31(05):489–58.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (1996) The ‘antisymmetric’ program: Theoretical and typological implications. Journal of Linguistics 32(2):447–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. (1999) Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (2005) Deriving Greenberg's universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistic Inquiry 36(3):315–32.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (2013) Cognition, universal grammar, and typological generalizations. Lingua 130:50–65. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.007.Google Scholar
Crain, S. (1991) Language acquisition in the absence of experience. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14:597–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crain, S., Thornton, R. & Khlentzos, D. (2009) The case of the missing generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics 20(1):145–55.Google Scholar
Culbertson, J. & Adger, D. (2014) Language learners privilege structured meaning over surface frequency. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(16):5842–47.Google Scholar
Culbertson, J., Smolensky, P. & Legendre, G. (2012) Learning biases predict a word order universal. Cognition 122(3):306–29.Google Scholar
Dryer, M. (1992) The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68:81–138.Google Scholar
Dryer, M. S. (2009) The branching direction theory of word order correlations revisited. In: Universals of language today, ed. Scalise, S., Magni, E. & Bisetto, A., pp. 185–207. Springer Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, J. (1963) Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In: Universals of language, ed. Greenberg, J., pp. 73–113. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gualmini, A. & Crain, S. (2005) The structure of children's linguistic knowledge. Linguistic Inquiry 36(3):463–74.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (1983) Word order universals. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (1990) A parsing theory of word order universals. Linguistic Inquiry 21:223–61.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (2004) Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kam, X.-N. C. & Fodor, J. D. (2013) Children's acquisition of syntax: Simple models are too simple. In: Rich languages from poor inputs, ed. Piattelli-Palmarini, M. & Berwick, R. C., pp. 43–60. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Perfors, A., Tenenbaum, J. B. & Regier, T. (2011) The learnability of abstract syntactic principles. Cognition 118(3):306–38. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.11.001.Google Scholar
Piattelli-Palmarini, M., Hancock, R. & Bever, T. (2008) Language as ergonomic perfection [Peer Commentary] Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31(5):530–31.Google Scholar
Pietroski, P. (2008) Minimalist meaning, internalist interpretation. Biolinguistics 2(4):317–41.Google Scholar
Reali, F. & Christiansen, M. H. (2005) Uncovering the richness of the stimulus: Structure dependence and indirect statistical evidence. Cognitive Science 29(6):1007–28.Google Scholar
Rizzolatti, G. & Arbib, M. A. (1998) Language within our grasp. [Viewpoint] Trends in Neurosciences 21(5):188–94.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L. & the PDP Research Group (1988) Parallel distributed processing, vol. 1, pp. 354–62. IEEE.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2006) Acquiring linguistic constructions. In: Handbook of child psychology. 2. Cognition, perception, and language, ed. Damon, W., Lerner, R., Kuhn, D. & Siegler, R., pp. 255–98. Wiley.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. T. (2001) The declarative/procedural model of lexicon and grammar. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 30:37–69.Google Scholar
Wexler, K. (2002) Lenneberg's dream: Learning, normal language development and specific language impairment. In: Language competence across populations: Towards a definition of specific language impairment, ed. Schaffer, J. & Levy, Y., pp. 11–60. Erlbaum.Google Scholar