Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science

Living Edition
| Editors: Todd K. Shackelford, Viviana A. Weekes-Shackelford

Noam Chomsky and Linguistics

  • Víctor M. Longa
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3621-1

Synonyms

Definition

The impact of Noam Chomsky on the field of linguistics, particularly the evolution of language.

Introduction

Noam Chomsky (born December 7, 1928) is one of the most influential contemporary thinkers. His huge impact surpasses linguistics to include psychology, philosophy, or computer science, among other fields. The advent of Chomsky’s generative grammar in the second half of the twentieth century challenged the traditional view that considered language to be a purely cultural trait deriving from our great intelligence and unlimited learning capacities, by claiming that language is an innate trait, part of the human biological endowment.

It would be hard to provide an overall presentation of Chomsky’s linguistic work, for it has been crucial in many topics: nativism, language and mind, universal grammar, the poverty of the stimulus, language acquisition, language structure, etc. All of these topics have been widely discussed and are...

Keywords

Language Evolution Computational System Animal Communication Minimalist Program Universal Grammar 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Balari, S., & Lorenzo, G. (2013). Computational phenotypes. Towards an evolutionary developmental biolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Balari, S., Benítez Burraco, A., Longa, V. M., & Lorenzo, G. (2013). The fossils of language: What are they, who has them, how did they evolve? In C. Boeckx & K. K. Grohmann (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of biolinguistics (pp. 489–523). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bateson, P. (2001). Behavioral development and Darwinian evolution. In S. Oyama, P. E. Griffiths, & R. D. Gray (Eds.), Cycles of contingencies. Developmental systems and evolution (pp. 149–166). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Berwick, R., & Chomsky, N. (2011). The biolinguistic program: The current state of its development. In A. M. Di Sciullo & C. Boeckx (Eds.), The biolinguistic enterprise. New perspectives on the evolution and nature of the human language faculty (pp. 19–41). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Berwick, R., & Chomsky, N. (2016). Why only us. Language and evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berwick, R., Okanoya, K., Beckers, G., & Bolhuis, G. (2011). Songs to syntax: The linguistics of birdsong. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(3), 113–121.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Berwick, R. C., Friederici, A. D., Chomsky, N., & Bolhuis, J. J. (2013). Evolution, brain, and the nature of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(2), 89–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bickerton, D. (1990). Language and species. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Chomsky, N. (1968). Language and mind. New York: Harcourt Brace.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Chomsky, N. (2007). Approaching UG from below. In U. Sauerland & H.-M. Gärtner (Eds.), Interfaces + recursion = language? Chomsky’s minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics (pp. 1–29). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  13. Chomsky, N. (2010). Some simple evo-devo theses: How true might they be for language? In R. Larson, V. Deprez, & H. Yamakido (Eds.), The evolution of language: Biolinguistic perspectives (pp. 45–62). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dennett, D. C. (1995). Darwin’s dangerous idea. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  15. Dennett, D. C. (1996). Kinds of minds. Toward an understanding of consciousness. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  16. Goodwin, B. (1994). How the leopard changed its spots. The evolution of complexity. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.Google Scholar
  17. Gottlieb, G. (1997). Synthesizing nature-nurture. Prenatal roots of instinctive behavior. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298, 1569–1579.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Jacob, F. (1977). Evolution and tinkering. Science, 196, 1161–1166.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Jenkins, L. (2000). Biolinguistics. Exploring the biology of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johnston, T. (1987). The persistence of dichotomies in the study of behavioral development. Developmental Review, 7, 149–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lieberman, P. (2006). Toward an evolutionary biology of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Longa, V. M. (2012). Lenguaje humano y comunicación animal: análisis comparativo. Bucaramanga: Universidad Industrial de Santander.Google Scholar
  24. Longa, V. M. (2013). The evolution of the faculty of language from a Chomskyan perspective: Bridging linguistics and biology. Journal of Anthropological Sciences, 91, 15–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Longa, V. M., & Lorenzo, G. (2012). Theoretical linguistics meets development: Explaining FL from an epigenicist point of view. In C. Boeckx, M. C. Horno-Chéliz, & J. L. Mendívil-Giró (Eds.), Language, from a biological point of view. Current issues in biolinguistics (pp. 52–84). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  26. Longa, V. M., Lorenzo, G., & Uriagereka, J. (2011). Minimizing language evolution. The Minimalist Program and the evolutionary shaping of language. In C. Boeckx (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic minimalism (pp. 595–616). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Pinker, S., & Bloom, P. (1990). Natural language and natural selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13, 707–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tallerman, M., & Gibson, K. (Eds.). (2012). The Oxford handbook of language evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Tremblay, P., & Dick, A. S. (2016). Broca and Wernicke are dead, or moving past the classic model of language neurobiology. Brain & Language, 162, 60–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wimsatt, W. (1999). Generativity, entrenchment, evolution, and innateness: Philosophy, evolutionary biology, and conceptual foundations of science. In V. Hardcastle (Ed.), Where biology meets psychology. Philosophical essays (pp. 139–179). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of PhilologyUniversidade de Santiago de CompostelaSantiago de CompostelaSpain

Section editors and affiliations

  • Christopher D. Watkins
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Psychology, School of Social and Health SciencesAbertay UniversityDundeeUK