Universal grammar is dead

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32 (5):470-471 (2009)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The idea of a biologically evolved, universal grammar with linguistic content is a myth, perpetuated by three spurious explanatory strategies of generative linguists. To make progress in understanding human linguistic competence, cognitive scientists must abandon the idea of an innate universal grammar and instead try to build theories that explain both linguistic universals and diversity and how they emerge

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,219

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Type Theory and Universal Grammar.Aarne Ranta - 2006 - Philosophia Scientiae:115-131.
Universal grammar and the critical age.Julia Herschensohn - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (4):611-612.
Rules and representations.Noam A. Chomsky - 1980 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3 (127):1-61.
Universal Grammar.Jim Vernon - 2007 - The Owl of Minerva 39 (1-2):1-24.
Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution.Michael A. Arbib - 2003 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (6):668-669.
What we owe the dead.J. Jeremy Wisnewski - 2009 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 26 (1):54-70.
How good is the linguistic analogy?Susan Dwyer - 2005 - In Peter Carruthers, Stephen Laurence & Stephen P. Stich (eds.), The Innate Mind: Structure and Contents. New York, US: Oxford University Press USA. pp. 145--167.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-10-27

Downloads
240 (#80,400)

6 months
10 (#219,185)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?