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 (...) diversity makes learning fundamental in the cognition of language: increasingly powerful models of general learning, paired with channelled caregiver input, seem set to manage language acquisition without recourse to any innate “universal grammar.” Understanding why human language has no clear parallels in the animal world requires a cross-species perspective: crucial ingredients are vocal learning (for which there are clear non-primate parallels) and an intention-attributing cognitive infrastructure that provides a universal base for language evolution. We conclude by situating linguistic diversity within a broader trend towards understanding human cognition through the study of variation in, for example, human genetics, neurocognition, and psycholinguistic processing. (shrink)

Talk of linguistic universals has given cognitive scientists the impression that languages are all built to a common pattern. In fact, there are vanishingly few universals of language in the direct sense that all languages exhibit them. Instead, diversity can be found at almost every level of linguistic organization. This fundamentally changes the object of enquiry from a cognitive science perspective. This target article summarizes decades of cross-linguistic work by typologists and descriptive linguists, showing just how few and unprofound the (...) universal characteristics of language are, once we honestly confront the diversity offered to us by the world's 6,000 to 8,000 languages. After surveying the various uses of “universal,” we illustrate the ways languages vary radically in sound, meaning, and syntactic organization, and then we examine in more detail the core grammatical machinery of recursion, constituency, and grammatical relations. Although there are significant recurrent patterns in organization, these are better explained as stable engineering solutions satisfying multiple design constraints, reflecting both cultural-historical factors and the constraints of human cognition.Linguistic diversity then becomes the crucial datum for cognitive science: we are the only species with a communication system that is fundamentally variable at all levels. Recognizing the true extent of structural diversity in human language opens up exciting new research directions for cognitive scientists, offering thousands of different natural experiments given by different languages, with new opportunities for dialogue with biological paradigms concerned with change and diversity, and confronting us with the extraordinary plasticity of the highest human skills. (shrink)

The computational program for theoretical neuroscience initiated by Marr and Poggio (1977) calls for a study of biological information processing on several distinct levels of abstraction. At each of these levels — computational (defining the problems and considering possible solutions), algorithmic (specifying the sequence of operations leading to a solution) and implementational — significant progress has been made in the understanding of cognition. In the past three decades, computational principles have been discovered that are common to a wide range of (...) functions in perception (vision, hearing, olfaction) and action (motor control). More recently, these principles have been applied to the analysis of cognitive tasks that require dealing with structured information, such as visual scene understanding and analogical reasoning. Insofar as language relies on cognition-general principles and mechanisms, it should be possible to capitalize on the recent advances in the computational study of cognition by extending its methods to linguistics. (shrink)

Construction-based approaches to syntax (Croft, 2001; Goldberg, 2003) posit a lexicon populated by units of various sizes, as envisaged by (Langacker, 1987). Constructions may be specified completely, as in the case of simple morphemes or idioms such as take it to the bank, or partially, as in the expression what’s X doing Y?, where X and Y are slots that admit fillers of particular types (Kay and Fillmore, 1999). Constructions offer an intriguing alternative to traditional rule-based syntax by hinting at (...) the extent to which the complexity of language can stem from a rich repertoire of stored, more or less entrenched (Harris, 1998) representations that address both syntactic and semantic issues, and encompass, in addition to general rules, “totally idiosyncratic forms and patterns of all intermediate degrees of generality” (Langacker, 1987, p.46). Because constructions are by their very nature language-specific, the question of acquisition in Construction Grammar is especially poignant. We address this issue by offering an unsupervised algorithm that learns constructions from raw corpora. (shrink)