Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Can Internalism and Externalism be Reconciled in a Biological Epistemology of Language?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biosemiotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper is an attempt at exploring the possibility of reconciling the two interpretations of biolinguistics which have been recently projected by Koster (Biolinguistics 3(1):61–92, 2009). The two interpretations—trivial and nontrivial—can be roughly construed as non-internalist and internalist conceptions of biolinguistics respectively. The internalist approach boils down to a conception of language where language as a mental grammar in the form of I-language grows and functions like a biological organ. On the other hand, under such a construal consistent with Koster’s (Biolinguistics 3(1):61-92, 2009), the non-internalist version does not necessarily have to be externalist in nature; rather it is a matter of mutual reinforcement of biology and culture under the rubric of a co-evolutionary dynamics. Here it will be argued that the apparent dichotomy between these two conceptions of biolinguistics can perhaps be resolved if we have a richer synthesis that accounts for both internalism and non-internalism.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Adams, F., & Aizawa, K. (2010). Defending the bounds of cognition. In R. Menary (Ed.), The extended mind. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archangeli, D., & Pulleyblank, D. (1994). Grounded phonology. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balari, S., & Lorenzo, G. (2009). Computational phenotypes: where the theory of computation meets evo-devo. Biolinguistics, 3(1), 2–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbieri, M. (2010). On the origin of language: a bridge between biolinguistics and biosemiotics. Biosemiotics, 3, 201–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, E. (1994). Modularity, domain specificity and the development of language. Discussions in Neuroscience, 10(1/2), 136–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates, E. (1997). Origins of language disorders: A comparative approach. In D. J. Thal & J. Reilly (Eds.), Special issue on origins of communication disorders. Developmental Neuropsychology 13(3), 447–476.

  • Bates, E. (1999). Plasticity, localization and language development. In S. H. Broman & J. M. Fletcher (Eds.), The changing nervous system: Neurobehavioral consequences of early brain disorders (pp. 214–253). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bickerton, D., & Szathmary, E. (Eds.). (2009). Biological foundations and origin of syntax. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr, P. (1990). Linguistic realities. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (2000). New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. (1997). Being there: Putting brain, body and world together again. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2008). Language as shaped by the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31(5), 489–509.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dabrowska, E. (2004). Language, mind and brain. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, A. (2002). Normal development of prefrontal cortex from birth to young adulthood: Cognitive functions, anatomy and biochemistry. In D. T. Stuss & R. T. Knight (Eds.), Principles of frontal lobe function (pp. 466–503). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, A. (2007). Interrelated and interdependent. Developmental Science, 10, 152–158.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, A. (2009). All or none hypothesis: a global-default mode that characterizes the brain and mind. Developmental Psychology, 45, 130–138.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Di Sciullo, A.-M. (2005a). Asymmetry in morphology. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Sciullo, A.-M. (Ed.). (2005b). UG and external systems: Language, brain and computation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dik, S. C. (1997a). The Theory of functional grammar. Part I: The structure of the clause. K. Hengeveld (Ed.). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Dik, S. C. (1997b). The theory of functional grammar. Part II: Complex and derived structures. K. Hengeveld (Ed.). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Dobzhansky, T. (1973). Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. American Biology Teacher, 35, 125–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowman, M., Kirby, S., & Griffiths, T. L. (2006). Innateness and culture in the evolution of language. In A. Cangelosi, A. Smith & K. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th international conference on the evolution of language. World Scientific.

  • Downing, P., Chan, A. W., Peelan, M., Dodds, C., & Kanwisher, N. (2005). Domain specificity in visual cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 16, 1453–1461.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Edelman, S. (2008). Computing the mind: How the mind really works. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, N., & Levinson, S. C. (2009). The myth of language universals. Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 429–492.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fasold, R. (1990). The sociolinguistics of language. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitch, W. T. (2009). Prolegomena to a future science of biolinguistics. Biolinguistics, 3(4), 283–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, P., & Miller, J. F. (Eds.). (2005). Developmental theory and language disorders. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. (1983). The modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillon, B. S. (2008). On the semantics/pragmatics distinction. Synthese, 165(3), 373–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Givón, T. (1995). Functionalism and grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Givón, T. (2002). Bio-linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Givón, T. (2005). Context as other minds: The pragmatics of sociality, cognition and communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gobet, F. (2005). Modularity and chunking. In W. Callebaut & D. Rasskin-Gutman (Eds.), Modularity: Understanding the development and evolution of natural complex systems (pp. 331–352). Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goudsmit, A. L. (2009). Sense and self-referentiality in living beings. Biosemiotics, 2, 39–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edwin Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edwin Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, T. W. (2002). The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298, 1569–1579.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Complexity and efficiency in grammars. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hengeveld, K. (2005). Dynamic expression in functional discourse grammar. In C. de Groot & K. Hengeveld (Eds.), Morphosyntactic expression in functional grammar (pp. 53–86). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hengeveld, K., Rijkhoff, J., & Siewierska, A. (2004). Parts of speech systems and word order. Journal of Linguistics, 40(3), 527–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackendoff, R. (2007). Language, consciousness, culture: Essays on mental structure. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. H., & Morton, J. (1991). Biology and cognitive development: The case of face recognition. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. H., Munakata, Y., & Gilmore, R. O. (Eds.). (1993). Brain development and cognition: A reader. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. H., Grossmann, T., & Cohen-Kadosh, K. (2009). Mapping functional brain development: building a social brain through interactive specialization. Developmental Psychology, 45, 151–155.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1998). Development itself is the key to understanding developmental disorders. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2(10), 389–398.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Karmiloff-Smith, A. (2006). Modularity of mind and language. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (Vol. 8, pp. 218–224). Oxford: Elsvier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelso, J. A. S. (1995). Dynamic patterns. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelso, J. A. S. (2002). The complementary nature of coordination dynamics: self-organization and the origins of agency. Journal of Nonlinear Phenomena in Complex Systems, 5, 364–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelso, J. A. S., & Engstrom, D. A. (2006). The complementary nature. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingsbury, M. A., & Finlay, B. L. (2001). The cortex in multidimensional space: where do cortical areas come from? Developmental Science, 4, 125–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinsella, A. R. (2009). Language evolution and syntactic theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kirby, S. (1996). Function, selection and innateness: The emergence of language universals. Dissertation, University of Edinburgh.

  • Koster, J. (2009). Ceaseless, unpredictable creativity: language as technology. Biolinguistics, 3(1), 61–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories tell us about the human mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar (Vol. 2). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, J. L. (2009). Evolutionary developmental linguistics: naturalization of the faculty of language. Language Sciences, 31, 33–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lohndal, T., & Narita, H. (2009). Internalism as methodology. Biolinguistics, 3(4), 321–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, G. (2004). The birth of the mind: How a tiny number of genes creates the complexities of human thought. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. New York: W. H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mascaró, J. (2007). External allomorphy and lexical representation. Linguistic Inquiry, 38, 715–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mondal, P. (2009). How language processing constrains (computational) natural language processing: A cognitive perspective. In Proceedings of 23rd Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation. Hong Kong.

  • Neelman, A., & Weerman, F. (1998). Flexible syntax: A theory of case and arguments. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, N., & Law, A. (2009). On parametric (and non-parametric) variation. Biolinguistics, 3(4), 332–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomsen, N. O. (Ed.). (2006). Competing models of linguistic change: Evolution and beyond (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 279). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomasello, M. (2008). The origins of human communication. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torey, Z. (2009). The crucible of consciousness: An integrated theory of mind and brain. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, India

    Prakash Mondal

Authors
  1. Prakash Mondal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Prakash Mondal.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mondal, P. Can Internalism and Externalism be Reconciled in a Biological Epistemology of Language?. Biosemiotics 5, 61–82 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-011-9120-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-011-9120-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation