| 1 |
Some Puzzling Foundational Issues: The Reading Program
|
|
|
|
In: Catalan Journal of Linguistics (2019) (2019)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 2 |
Generative Grammar and the Faculty of Language: Insights, Questions, and Challenges
|
|
|
|
In: Catalan Journal of Linguistics (2019) (2019)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 3 |
RECENT CAREER HISTORY
|
|
|
|
In: http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kroch/vita413.pdf (2013)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 7 |
Of Minds and Language
|
|
|
|
In: Biolinguistics, Vol 1, Iss 0, Pp 009-027 (2007) (2007)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 8 |
How to Say Ought in Foreign: The Composition of Weak Necessity Modals∗
|
|
|
|
In: http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/people/faculty/iatridou/ought.pdf (2006)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 9 |
Three factors in language design
|
|
|
|
In: http://www2.hu-berlin.de/linguistik/institut/syntax/onlinelexikon/_materialien/chomsky_2005.pdf (2005)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 10 |
Three factors in language design
|
|
|
|
In: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/linguistic_inquiry/v036/36.1chomsky.pdf (2005)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 11 |
Three Factors in Language Design
|
|
|
|
In: http://www.er.uqam.ca/nobel/bioling/Chomsky_05.pdf (2005)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 12 |
Dimensions of symmetry in syntax : agreement and clausal architecture
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 13 |
Neuroscience: the faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve
|
|
|
|
In: http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~sbenus/Teaching/TheorLx/Hauser_Chomsky_Fitch_Science_2002.pdf (2002)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 14 |
Neuroscience: the faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve
|
|
|
|
In: http://www.psych.yorku.ca/gigi/documents/Hauser_Chomsky_Fitch_2002.pdf (2002)
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 15 |
The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?
|
|
|
|
In: http://www.mapageweb.umontreal.ca/tuitekj/cours/chomsky/Hauser-Chomsky-Fitch.pdf (2002)
|
|
Abstract:
We argue that an understanding of the faculty of language requires substantial interdisciplinary cooperation. We suggest how current developments in linguistics can be profitably wedded to work in evolutionary biology, anthropology, psychology, and neuroscience. We submit that a distinction should be made between the faculty of language in the broad sense (FLB) and in the narrow sense (FLN). FLB includes a sensory-motor system, a conceptual-intentional system, and the computational mechanisms for recursion, providing the capacity to generate an infinite range of expressions from a finite set of elements. We hypothesize that FLN only includes recursion and is the only uniquely human component of the faculty of language. We further argue that FLN may have evolved for reasons other than language, hence comparative studies might look for evidence of such computations outside of the domain of communication (for example, number, navigation, and social relations). I f a martian graced our planet, it would be struck by one remarkable similarity among Earth's living creatures and a key difference. Concerning similarity, it would note that all living things are designed on the basis of highly conserved developmental systems that read an (almost) universal language encoded in DNA base pairs. As such, life is arranged hierarchically with a foundation of discrete, unblendable units (codons, and, for the most part, genes) capable of combining to create increasingly complex and virtually limitless varieties of both species and individual organisms. In contrast, it would notice the absence of a universal code of communication If our martian naturalist were meticulous, it might note that the faculty mediating human communication appears remarkably different from that of other living creatures; it might further note that the human faculty of language appears to be organized like the genetic code-hierarchical, generative, recursive, and virtually limitless with respect to its scope of expression. With these pieces in hand, this martian might begin to wonder how the genetic code changed in such a way as to generate a vast number of mutually incomprehensible communication systems across species while maintaining clarity of comprehension within a given species. The martian would have stumbled onto some of the essential problems surrounding the question of language evolution, and of how humans acquired the faculty of language. In exploring the problem of language evolution, it is important to distinguish between questions concerning language as a communicative system and questions concerning the computations underlying this system, such as those underlying recursion. As we argue below, many acrimonious debates in this field have been launched by a failure to distinguish between these problems. According to one view (1), questions concerning abstract computational mechanisms are distinct from those concerning communication, the latter targeted at problems at the interface between abstract computation and both sensory-motor and conceptual-intentional interfaces. This view should not, of course, be taken as a claim against a relationship between computation and communication. It is possible, as we discuss below, that key computational capacities evolved for reasons other than communication but, after they proved to have utility in communication, were altered because of constraints imposed at both the periphery (e.g., what we can hear and say or see and sign, the rapidity with which the auditory cortex can process rapid temporal and spec-
|
|
URL: http://www.mapageweb.umontreal.ca/tuitekj/cours/chomsky/Hauser-Chomsky-Fitch.pdf
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.1044.2730
|
|
BASE
|
|
Hide details
|
|
|
| 19 |
Case, agreement and word order : issues in the syntax and acquisition of Taml
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
|
|
