Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:26:24.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pro and con: Internal speech and the evolution of complex language

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2016

Christina Behme
Christina Behme*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS B3H 4R2, Canada. christinabehme@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The target article by Christiansen & Chater (C&C) offers an integrated framework for the study of language acquisition and, possibly, a novel role for internal speech in language acquisition. However, the “Now-or-Never bottleneck” raises a paradox for language evolution. It seems to imply that language complexity has been either reduced over time or has remained the same. How, then, could languages as complex as ours have evolved in prelinguistic ancestors? Linguistic Platonism could offer a solution to this paradox.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 39 , 2016 , e65
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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.)

References

Behme, C. (2014a) Assessing direct and indirect evidence in linguistic research. Topoi 33:373–83.Google Scholar
Behme, C. (2014b) Evaluating Cartesian linguistics: From historic antecedents to computational modeling. Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1975) Reflections on language. Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1980) The linguistic approach. In: Language and learning, ed. Piattelli-Palmerini, M., pp. 107–30. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986) Knowledge of language. Praeger Publishing.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2000) The architecture of language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2002) On nature and language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2012) Noam Chomsky, the science of language – interviews with James McGilvray. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gil, D. (2009) How much grammar does it take to sail a boat? In: Language complexity as an evolving variable, ed. Sampson, G., Gil, D. & Trudgill, P., pp. 19–33. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grandin, T. (2005) Animals in translation. Scribner.Google Scholar
Hauser, M. D., Yang, C., Berwick, R. C., Tattersall, I., Ryan, M., Watumull, J., Chomsky, N. & Lewontin, R. (2014) The mystery of language evolution. Frontiers of Psychology 5:401. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00401.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. (1984) An outline of Platonist grammar. In: Talking minds: The study of language in cognitive science, ed. Bever, T. G., Carroll, J. M. & Miller, L. A., pp. 17–48. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. (1996) The unfinished Chomskyan revolution. Mind and Language 11:270–94.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. (1998) Realistic rationalism. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. (2004) Sense, reference, and philosophy. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. & Postal, P. M. (1991) Realism vs. conceptualism in linguistics. Linguistics and Philosophy 14:515–54.Google Scholar
Neef, M. (2014) Das nächste Paradigma: Realistische Linguistik. Eine Ergänzung zum Beitrag Wo stehen wir in der Grammatiktheorie? von Wolfgang Sternefeld und Frank Richter. Muttersprache 124:105–20.Google Scholar
Postal, P. M. (2003) Remarks on the foundations of linguistics. The Philosophical Forum 34:233–51.Google Scholar
Postal, P. M. (2009) The incoherence of Chomsky's “Biolinguistic” ontology. Biolinguistics 3:104–23.Google Scholar