Reconsidering linguistic nativism from an interdisciplinary, emergentist perspective
For decades, interdisciplinary research efforts have accumulated insights that diminish the significance of the
classic nature versus nurture dichotomy, instead calling for a nuanced, multifactorial approach to ontogeny. Similarly, the role
of genes in both phylogeny and ontogeny, once seen as rather deterministic, is now conceptualized as highly dependent on
environmental factors, including behavior. Linguistic theories have, in principle, made an effort to incorporate these changing
views. However, the central claim of the given paper is that this apparent compliance with biological insights remains
superficial. As such, considerable disconnects between linguistic theory and what is known about the biological underpinnings of
complex traits persist, negatively impacting pertinent views on language acquisition, language universals and the evolution of
language. Given the breadth of these fields of study, the aim of this paper is to tackle the root of the problem: It begins by
sketching out linguistic nativism as conceptualized within generativism, pointing to aspects within this position that stand in
conflict with the interdisciplinary literature. It will then review select areas of research in a succinct manner in order to
substantiate the criticism and characterize the counterposition as found within the biological sciences. The paper will culminate
in addressing these disconnects on conceptual grounds, i.e. invoking the term emergence as employed in
neuroscience as a possible means to reconcile those biological insights with linguistic nativism.
Article outline
- 1.On conceptual idealization and false dichotomies
- 2.Chomsky’s position(s) on language evolution and the language faculty
- 3.Of kittens and the ontogeny of vision
- 4.Of dietary products and the role of genetic changes
- 5.Defending nativism despite these criticisms, part 1: The pattern of language acquisition
- 6.Defending nativism despite these criticisms, part 2: Critical periods and L2 acquisition
- 7.Defending nativism despite these criticisms, part 3: The modularity of language
- 8.Updating linguistic nativism: Emergence as a bridging concept
- 9.Weak theoretical approaches are not weak
- Competing interests statement
-
References