Language in our brain: The origins of a uniquely human capacity by Angela D. Friederici

Bolhuis, Johan J.

doi:10.1353/lan.2019.0058

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Crain et al (2017) come to the conclusion that biolinguistic approaches are superior to usage-based approaches in terms of descriptive and explanatory adequacy. Yang et al (2017) and Bolhuis (2019) represent further examples of the views held by “traditional” biolinguistics. Usage-based linguists, however, disagree with this assessment (see e.g., Ambridge and Lieven, 2011; Rowland, 2014; Ambridge, 2019).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constructing a Consensus on Language Evolution? Convergences and Differences Between Biolinguistic and Usage-Based Approaches

Pleyer

Hartmann

2019

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two of the main theoretical approaches to the evolution of language are biolinguistics and usage-based approaches. Both are often conceptualized as belonging to seemingly irreconcilable “camps.” Biolinguistic approaches assume that the ability to acquire language is based on a language-specific genetic foundation. Usage-based approaches, on the other hand, stress the importance of domain-general cognitive capacities, social cognition, and interaction. However, there have been a number of recent developments in both paradigms which suggest that biolinguistic and usage-based approaches are actually moving closer together. For example, theoretical advancements such as evo-devo and complex adaptive system theory have gained traction in the language sciences, leading to changed conceptions of issues like the relative influence of “nature” and “nurture.” In this paper, we outline points of convergence between current minimalist biolinguistic and usage-based approaches regarding four contentious issues: (1) modularity and domain specificity; (2) innateness and development; (3) cultural and biological evolution; and (4) knowledge of language and its description. We show that across both paradigms, researchers have come to increasingly embrace more complex views of these issues. They also have come to appreciate the view that biological and cultural evolution are closely intertwined, which lead to an increased amount of common ground between minimalist biolinguistics and usage-based approaches.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constructing a Consensus on Language Evolution? Convergences and Differences Between Biolinguistic and Usage-Based Approaches

Pleyer

Hartmann

2019

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We argue that the basic properties of language such as Merge and compositionality make it clear that such neobehaviourist interpretations (Bolhuis, 2017(Bolhuis, , 2019) cannot be true (Bolhuis et al, 2015;Everaert et al, 2017). Our intuitions about how strings of words combine into phrases, and about the meanings of these phrases, can only be derived from hierarchical structures in the mind, and cannot be discerned by observing environmental events, i.e.…”

Section: Languagementioning

confidence: 87%

Language and learning: the cognitive revolution at 60‐odd

2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Around the middle of the last century, the prevailing psychological paradigm of behaviourism was challenged by what is now known as the cognitive revolution. Behaviourists viewed learning as changes in patterns of behaviour through reinforcement. By contrast, advocates of the cognitive approach argued that such behavioural changes were outward manifestations of computational operations on mental representations. Here we consider the current state of the cognitive revolution, focusing on the two most contentious issues in the debate: language and learning. The cognitive approach has proved to be extremely fruitful in both fields. Although contemporary learning theory has almost completely embraced the cognitive approach, the study of language has witnessed a clear empiricist trend to revert back to a kind of neo-behaviourism. Many contemporary authors contend that language is a means of communication that is learned solely through the observation of external events, and culturally transmitted to successive generations. Here, we argue that learning and language can only be properly understood from a cognitive perspective, where the mind is conceived of as a biologically underpinned computational system. As is the case in learning theory, there is abundant evidence showing that language is subserved by an autonomous cognitive system in the mind. We conclude that the cognitive revolution has fundamentally changed our understanding of the mind.

show abstract

What would it take for us to abandon Construction Grammar?

Hoffmann

2020

BJL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the hallmarks of scientific theories is their falsifiability, i.e. the fact that they make predictions that can objectively be proven wrong. Thus, it is paramount that researchers, including linguists, are able to state what kind of evidence would lead them to abandon their scientific theory. Yet, researchers just like all other human beings are susceptible to confirmation bias, i.e. the fact that they only seek evidence that support their existing views. In this squib, I will raise the question whether Construction Grammar can become a falsifiable theory.

show abstract

Language in our brain: The origins of a uniquely human capacity by Angela D. Friederici

Cited by 3 publications

References 22 publications

Constructing a Consensus on Language Evolution? Convergences and Differences Between Biolinguistic and Usage-Based Approaches

Constructing a Consensus on Language Evolution? Convergences and Differences Between Biolinguistic and Usage-Based Approaches

Language and learning: the cognitive revolution at 60‐odd

What would it take for us to abandon Construction Grammar?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About