BIOLOGICAL NOTIONS OF INNATENESS AND EXPLANATION OF LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

  • MIKA KIIKERI
  • TOMI KOKKONEN
Part of the BOSTON STUDIES IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE book series (BSPS, volume 252)

Abstract

All children learn or acquire their first language during a relatively short period in childhood. Individual variation or differences in learning environments seem to have very little influence on this process. Basically, every human being acquires a native language in essentially the same way. These facts have long puzzled linguists and psychologists. Generally speakin, there have been two competing accounts of this phenomenon, the empiricist’s story and the nativist’s story.

Keywords

Defend Folk 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ariew, A. (1996). Innateness and Canalization. Philosophy of Science 63: 19–27.Google Scholar
  2. Ariew, A. (1999). Innateness Is Canalization: In Defense of a Developmental Account of Innateness. In Hardcastle 1999: 117–138.Google Scholar
  3. Ariew, A. (unpublished): Innateness as Triggering: Biologically Grounded Nativism. http://www.uri.edu/artsci/phl/triggering.htm#_ftn1.Google Scholar
  4. Bateson, P. (1991). Are There Principles of Behavioural Development?. In Patrick Bateson (ed.), The Development and Integration of Behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press:19–39.Google Scholar
  5. Bjorklund, D. F. and Pellegrini, A. D. (2001). The Origins of Human Nature. Evolutionary Developmental Psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  6. Cartwright, J. (2000). Evolution and Human Behaviour. Darwinian Perspectives on Human Nature. New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use. Praeger: New York.Google Scholar
  8. Chomsky, N. (2000). New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Collins, J. (2003). Cowie on the Poverty of Stimulus. Synthese 136: 159–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cowie, F. (1999). What’s Within? Nativism Reconsidered. Oxford: The Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Crain, S. and P. Pietroski. (2001). Nature, Nurture and Universal Grammar. Linguistics and Philosophy 24: 139–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elfman, J., E. Bates, M. Johnson et al. (1996). Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development. Journal of Consciousness Studies 5: 117–119.Google Scholar
  13. Fodor, J. (2001). Doing Without What’s Within: Fiona Cowie’s Critique of Nativism. Mind 110: 99–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fodor, J., T. Bever and M. Garrett. (1974). The Psychology of Language. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  15. Gould, S. J., and Lewontin, R. C. (1979). The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationst Programme. Proceedings of Royal Society of London 205: 581–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Griffiths, P. E. (2002). What Is Innateness? The Monist 85: 70–85.Google Scholar
  17. Griffiths, P. E. and R. D. Gray (1994). Developmental Systems and Evolutionary Explanation. Journal of Philosophy 91: 277–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hardcastle, V. G. (ed.) (1999). Where Biology Meets Psychology: Philosophical Essays. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Horvath, C. (2000). Interactionism and Innateness in the Evolutionary Study of Human Nature. Biology and Philosophy 15: 321–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Khalidi, M. A. (2002). Nature and Nurture in Cognition. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53: 251–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Laurence, S. and E. Margolis (2001). The Poverty of the Stimulus Argument. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52: 217–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lewontin, R. (1974). The Analysis of Variance and the Analysis of Causes. American Journal of Human Genetics 26: 400–411.Google Scholar
  23. Mameli, M., and P. Bateson (forthcoming). Innateness and the Sciences. Biology and Philosophy.Google Scholar
  24. Moore, D. S. (2003). The Dependent Gene. New York: Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar
  25. Putnam, H. (1967). The ‘Innateness Hypothesis’ and Explanatory Models in Linguistics. Synthese 17: 12–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Samuels, R. (2002). Nativism in Cognitive Science. Mind and Language 17: 233–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Samuels, R. (2004). Innateness in Cognitive Science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8: 136–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sober, E. (1988). Apportioning Causal Responsibility. Journal of Philosophy 85: 303–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sober, E. (1998). Innate Knowledge. In Craig (ed.): Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge: 794–797.Google Scholar
  30. Stich, S. (1975). The Idea of Innateness. In Stich (ed.): Innate Ideas. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  31. Stromsworld, K. (1999). Cognitive and Neural Aspects of Language Acquisition. In Lepore and Pylyshyn (eds.): What is Cognitive Science? Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers: 356–400.Google Scholar
  32. West-Eberhardt, M. J. (2003). Developmental Plasticity and Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Wimsatt, W. C. (1999). Generativity, Entrenchment, Evolution, and Innateness: Philosophy, Evolutionary Biology, and Conceptual Foundations of Science. In Hardcastle (ed.) (1999): 139–180.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • MIKA KIIKERI
  • TOMI KOKKONEN

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations