2017 Abstract More than half a century ago, Noam Chomsky advanced the nativist hypothesis that our syntactic competence is innate. His hypothesis has received a number of objections from the philosophers and psychologists oriented to empiricism. The debate is still ongoing. This paper aims to elucidate the structure of this debate between nativism and empiricism. First, we delineate the meaning of innateness relevant in this debate. Then we articulate four arguments for nativism and the objections from empiricists against each of them. The four arguments are Poverty of Stimulus Argument, the argument from linguistic universals, the argument from convergence, and the argument from critical period effects. nativism Scholl & Leslie 1999 Hauser 2006 2016 8 28 2016 12 26 2017 8 4 107
2 3 4 innateness 27 Gross & Rey 2012, p. 320 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 T T 2 T 108
T 3 4 T T degree 3 3 c. diff. 5 Ariew 1999, p. 133 c. diff. 3 3 3 3 3 3 c. diff. 109
Cowie 1999, pp. 43-47 psychological structure primitivisms S S 3 3 3.1 cf. Cowie 1999, pp. 254-257; Scholz & Pullum 2006, p. 65 110
3 3 3 3 6 S S S Stich 2011, p. 31 111
3 3 3 3 3 Rey 2000 be yes/no Chomsky 1975, p. 31 be The man who is tall is in the room. be 3 3 2 architecture cf. Cowie 1999, sec. 2.4 domain-specific domain-neutral 7 112
3 3 Chomsky 1980 1980 P&P Baker 2001 8 P&PN N 2 N head parameter drink beer drink beer VP V NP VP NP V category PP P NP PP NP P X, Y XP {X, YP} 9 XP X YP 113
XP YP X head-initial head-final Null Subject subject optional Piove. subject obligatory it there Appeared a boat. There appeared a boat. mastery 10 11 P&P Berwick & Chomsky 2015, p. 69 P&P Eat your spinach! Pinker 1994, p. 112 p. 152 Couldn t give a damn. 114
ze Cowie 1999, p. 259 12 P&P P&P Poverty of the Stimulus Argument, PSA PSA 13 1. 2. 3. 4. 2. 3. 5. 1. 4. 1 3 3 14 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 cf. Scholz & Pullum 2006, pp. 60-61 4 PSA cf. Laurence & Margolis 2001, p. 248 2 3 115
Popperian conjecture and refutation 3 3 3 15 Cowie 1999, p. 215 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 P&P 16 SRN 17 SRN SRN SRN 116
Is NP ADJ? NP X NP Y X, Y NP SRN Is the boy who smoking is nice? who SRN Lewis & Elman 2001 18 SRN Berwick et al 2011 usage-based linguistics entrenchment preemption Tomasello 2003, 5.3 ; Evans 2014, pp. 131-132 19 He disappeared the rabbit. He made the rabbit disappear. disappear 3 117
3 3 20 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Cowie 1999, p. 211 be be 21 Is the boy who was crying _ still here? Pullum & Scholz 2002, p. 23 Crain & Pietroski 2001, p. 174 118
22 19 1980 LSN ISN Evans 2014, p. 129 PSA 1 2 3 4,000-6,000 SVO 23 Baker 119
2001, p. 31 p.40 Putnam 1967, p. 18 DNA Cavalli-Sforza 2001 Pinker 1994, pp. 234-235 pp. 13-14 120
Pinker 1994, pp. 26-27 p. 31 Chomsky 1975, pp. 144-145 IQ Cowie 2008, sec. 3.6 13 121
Pinker 1994, pp. 294-295 pp. 99-100 3 3 3 3 3 3 CD-ROM CD-ROM Cowie 1999, p. 300 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 30 Laurence & Margolis 2001, p. 237 Elman 1993; 1999, p. 191 SRN 3.2.1 SRN 122
3.2.2 SRN 2 3 4 24 1 Samuels 2004 Griffiths 2001; cf. Scholz & Pullum 2006, pp. 66-67 123
2 3 1993, p. 528 4 10 5 10 5 5 c. diff. 6 7 learning unlearned 8 90 Minimalism P&P P&P Pinker & Jackendoff 2005 9 10 Cowie 1999, pp. 244-248 11 X Merge 12 Fodor 2001; Hornstein 2008, pp. 164-168. 13 Cowie 1999, p. 182; Pullum & Scholz 2002, p. 18 PSA cf. Laurence & Margolis 2001, p. 251 PSA 124
14 15 Bird 1998, pp. 177-182 16 Cowie 1999, pp. 191-193; Evans 2014, p. 119 8 bidakupadotigolabu... bidaku, golabu 17 SRN 1999 18 Pinker 1994, pp. 89-97 pp.121-132 19 grammaticalization 20 cf. Pinker 2015 21 3-5 Pinker 1994, p. 42 p. 53 4, 5 4,5 22 Bickerton 1990; Pinker 1994, pp.32-39 pp.38-49 23 24 125
Ariew, A. (1999) Innateness is canalization, in Hardcastle, V. ed., Where Biology Meets Psychology, MIT Press, pp. 117-138. Baker, M. (2001) The Atoms of Language, Basic Books. 2003 Berwick, R. Pietroski, P. Yankama, B. & Chomsky, N. (2011) Poverty of stimulus revisited, Cognitive Science, pp. 1207-1242. Berwick, R. & Chomsky, N. (2015) Why Only Us, MIT Press. Bickerton, D. (1990) Language and Species, University of Chicago Press. 1998 Bird, A. (1998) Philosophy of Science, Routledge. Cavalli-Sforza, L. (2001) Genes, Peoples, and Languages, Penguin. Chomsky, N. (1975) Reflections on Language, Fontana. 1979 (1980) Rules and Representations, Columbia University Press. 1984 Cowie, F. (1999) What s within?, Oxford University Press. (2008) Innateness and language, in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, available online at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/innateness-language/. Crain, S. & Pietroski, P. (2001) Nature, nurture and universal grammar, Linguistics and Philosophy 24, pp. 139-185. Elman, J. (1993) Learning and development in neural networks: The importance of starting small, Cognition 48, pp. 71-99. Evans, V. (2014) The Language Myth, Cambridge University Press. Fodor, J. D. (2001) Setting syntactic parameters, in Baltin, M. and Collins, C. ed. The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, Blackwell, pp. 730-767. Griffiths, P. (2002) What is innateness? Monist 85, pp. 70-85. Gross, S & Rey, R. (2012) Innateness, in Margolis, E. Samuels, R. & Stich, S. ed. The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Cognitive Science, Oxford University Press, pp. 318-360. Hauser, M. (2006) Moral Minds, Harper Collins. Hornstein, N. (2008) A Theory of Syntax, Cambridge University Press. Laurence, S. & Margolis, E. (2001) The poverty of the stimulus argument, British Journal of Philosophy of Science 52, pp. 217-276. Lewis, J. & Elman, J. (2001) Learnability and the statistical structure of language, Proceedings of the 26th Annual Boston University Conference on Language 126
Development. Pinker, S. (1994) The Language Instinct, Harper Collins. NHK 1995 (2015) Formal models of language learning in his Language, Cognition and Human Nature, Oxford University Press, pp. 1-64. Pinker, S. & Jackendoff, R. (2005) The faculty of language: What s special about it?, Cognition 95, pp. 201-236. Pullum, G. & Scholz, B. (2002) Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments, The Linguistic Review 19, pp. 9-50. Putnam, H. (1967) The innateness hypothesis and explanatory models in linguistics, Synthese 17, pp. 12-22. Rey, G. (2000) Review of Fiona Cowie, What s within, Times Literary Supplement. Samuels, R. (2002) Nativism in cognitive science, Mind and Language 17, pp. 233-265. (2004) Innateness in cognitive science, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8, pp. 136-141. Scholl, B. & Leslie, A. (1999) Modularity, development and `theory of mind, Mind and Language 14, pp. 131-153. Scholz, B & Pullum, G. (2006) Irrational nativist exuberance, in Stainton, R ed. Contemporary Debates in Cognitive Science, Blackwell, pp. 58-80. Stich, S. (2011) The idea of innateness in his Collected Papers: Mind and Language, 1972-2010, Vol. 1, Oxford University Press, pp. 10-35. Tomasello, M. (2003) Constructing a Language, Harvard University Press. 2008 M. 1999 R. 4 1993 127