Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:50:58.744Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Arguing about innateness*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 July 2014

VIRGINIA VALIAN
VIRGINIA VALIAN*
Affiliation:
Hunter College and CUNY Graduate Center
*
Address for correspondence: V. V. Valian, Hunter College – CUNY, 695 Park Ave, New York, NY, 10065, USA. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper lays out the components of a language acquisition model, the interconnections among the components, and the differing stances of nativism and empiricism about syntax. After demonstrating that parsimony cannot decide between the two stances, the paper analyzes nine examples of evidence that have been used to argue for or against nativism, concluding that most pieces of evidence are either irrelevant or suggest that language is special but need not invoke innate ideas. Two pieces of evidence – the development of home sign languages and the acquisition of Determiners – do show not just that language is special but that the child has innate syntactic content. The existential claim that nativism makes – there is at least one innate syntactic idea – is an easier claim to verify than the universal claim that empiricism makes – there are no innate syntactic ideas.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 41 , Issue S1: Reflections: 40 years of JCL , July 2014 , pp. 78 - 92
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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.)

Footnotes

[*]

This research was supported by grants from NSF and PSC-CUNY and by a School Visiting Fellowship from the School of Advanced Study at the University of London. I am grateful to T. G. Bever, C. Braun, M. S. Chodorow, M. C. Potter, S. Prasada, and B. Smith for comments and discussion. None of the foregoing necessarily agree with me!

References

REFERENCES

Abbot-Smith, K. & Tomasello, M. (2006). Exemplar-learning and schematization in a usage-based account of syntactic acquisition. Linguistic Review 23(3), 275–90.Google Scholar
Abe, K. & Watanabe, D. (2011). Songbirds possess the spontaneous ability to discriminate syntactic rules. Nature Neuroscience 14(8), 1067–74.Google Scholar
Adger, D. (2013). Constructions and grammatical explanation: comments on Goldberg. Mind & Language 28(4), 466–78.Google Scholar
Bannard, C. & Lieven, E. (2012). Formulaic language in L1 acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32, 3–16.Google Scholar
Bencini, G. M. & Valian, V. V. (2008). Abstract sentence representations in 3-year-olds: evidence from language production and comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 59(1), 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology 18(3), 355–87.Google Scholar
Brainard, M. S. & Doupe, A. J. (2013). Translating birdsong: songbirds as a model for basic and applied medical research. Annual Review of Neuroscience 36, 489–517.Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. (1963). The ontogeny of English phrase structure: the first phase. Language 39(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
Branigan, H. (2007). Syntactic priming. Language and Linguistics Compass 1(1/2), 1–16.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: the early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Collins, C. & Stabler, E. (2011). A formalization of minimalist syntax. Unpublished manuscript, New York University and University of California – Los Angeles, online: <http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001691> (last accessed 29 April 2014).+(last+accessed+29+April+2014).>Google Scholar
Crain, S. & Thornton, R. (2000). Investigations in universal grammar: a guide to experiments on the acquisition of syntax and semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Curtiss, S., Fromkin, V., Krashen, S., Rigler, D. & Rigler, M. (1974). The linguistic development of Genie. Language 50, 528–54.Google Scholar
Farah, M. J., Shera, D. M., Savage, J. H., Betancourt, L., Giannetta, J. M., Brodsky, N. L., … Hurt, H. (2006). Childhood poverty: specific associations with neurocognitive development. Brain Research 1110(1), 166–74.Google Scholar
Fisher, S. E. & Marcus, G. F. (2006). The eloquent ape: genes, brains and the evolution of language. Nature Reviews Genetics 7(1), 9–20.Google Scholar
Gobet, F. & Campitelli, G. (2007). The role of domain-specific practice, handedness, and starting age in chess. Developmental Psychology 43(1), 159–172.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2013). Constructionist approaches to language. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G. (eds), Handbook of construction grammar (pp. 15–31). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S. (2005). The resilience of language: what gesture creation in deaf children can tell us about how all children learn language. New York: Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, J., Valian, V. & Karmiloff-Smith, A. (2002). A study of relative clauses in Williams syndrome. Journal of Child Language 29(2), 403–16.Google Scholar
Hart, B. & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experiences of American children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar
Hunsicker, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2012). Hierarchical structure in a self-created communication system: building nominal constituents in homesign. Language 88(4), 732–63.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. & Kelter, S. (1982). Surface form and memory in question answering. Cognitive Psychology 14(1), 78–106.Google Scholar
Manolio, T. A., Collins, F. S., Cox, N. J., Goldstein, D. B., Hindorff, L. A., Hunter, D. J., … Visscher, P. M. (2009). Finding the missing heritability of complex diseases. Nature 461(7265), 747–53.Google Scholar
Marcus, G. F. & Fisher, S. E. (2003). FOXP2 in focus: What can genes tell us about speech and language? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(6), 257–62.Google Scholar
Pine, J. M., Freudenthal, D., Krajewski, G. & Gobet, F. (2013). Do young children have adult-like syntactic categories? Zipf's law and the case of the determiner. Cognition 127(3), 345–60.Google Scholar
Pine, J. M. & Lieven, E. V. (1997). Slot and frame patterns and the development of the determiner category. Applied Psycholinguistics 18(2), 123–138.Google Scholar
Risch, N. J. (2000). Searching for genetic determinants in the new millennium. Nature 405(6788), 847–56.Google Scholar
Rumbaugh, D. M. & Savage-Rumbaugh, E. S. (1996). Biobehavioral roots of language: words, apes, and a child. In Velichkovsky, B. M. & Rumbaugh, D. (eds.), Communicating meaning: the evolution and development of language (pp. 257–274). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Savage-Rumbaugh, E. S., Murphy, J., Sevcik, R. A., Brakke, K. E., Williams, S. & Rumbaugh, D. M. (1993). Language comprehension in ape and child. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Serial No. 233, 58(3/4).Google Scholar
Senghas, R. J., Senghas, A. & Pyers, J. E. (2005). The emergence of Nicaraguan Sign Language: questions of development, acquisition, and evolution. In Langer, J., Parker, S. T. & Milbrath, C. (eds), Biology and knowledge revisited: from neurogenesis to psychogenesis (pp. 287–306). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, U. (2010). The cartographic enterprise in syntax. Language and Linguistics Compass 4(6), 417–29.Google Scholar
Thomas, M. & Karmiloff-Smith, A. (2005). Can developmental disorders reveal the component parts of the human language faculty? Language Learning and Development 1(1), 65–92.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Valian, V. (2009a). Innateness and learnability. In Bavin, E. (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of language acquisition (pp. 15–34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Valian, V. (2009b). Abstract linguistic representations and innateness: the development of determiners. In Lewis, W., Karimi, S., Harley, H. & Farrar, S. (eds), Language: theory and practice: papers in honor of D. Terence Langendoen (pp. 189–206). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Valian, V. (2013). Determiners: an empirical argument for innateness. In Sanz, M., Laka, I. & Tanenhaus, M. (eds), Language down the garden path: the cognitive and biological basis for linguistic structure (pp. 272–279). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Valian, V., Solt, S. & Stewart, J. (2009). Abstract categories or limited-scope formulae? The case of children's determiners Journal of Child Language 36(4), 743–778.Google Scholar
Watkins, K. E., Dronkers, N. F. & Vargha-Khadem, F. (2002). Behavioural analysis of an inherited speech and language disorder: comparison with acquired aphasia. Brain 125(3), 452–64.Google Scholar
Weiner, E. J. & Labov, W. (1983). Constraints on the agentless passive. Journal of Linguistics 19(1), 29–58.Google Scholar
Yang, J., Benyamin, B., McEvoy, B. P., Gordon, S., Henders, A. K., Nyholt, D. R. … & Visscher, P. M. (2010). Common SNPs explain a large proportion of the heritability for human height. Nature Genetics 42(7), 565–9.Google Scholar