Language: UG or not to be, that is the question.

Johan J Bolhuis,Robert C Berwick,Ian Tattersall,Noam Chomsky

doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002063

Johan J Bolhuis, Robert C Berwick + Show 2 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002063

Copy DOI

Abstract

Language is not the same as speech or communication; rather, it is a computational cognitive system. It has appeared very recently, consistent with a minimalist view of language's hierarchical syntactic structure.

Highlights

Lieberman argues against the existence of a language faculty in the sense in which we defined it: a domain- and species-specific computational cognitive system that can generate arbitrarily complex hierarchical syntactic structure
In our essay [2] we argue that “crucially, merge can apply to the results of its own output,” and we show that this recursive feature leads to the potentially unbounded hierarchical expressions characteristic of human language, each of which is systematically interpreted at the conceptual-intentional interface, that is, internal to the mind-brain, not just externalized as speech
As we argued, it is quite conceivable that this computational system could have been linked to “possibly preexisting perceptual and motor mechanisms” [2], while mutations in both FOXP2 and other genes may have played a role in the evolution of those mechanisms

Summary

Introduction

Lieberman argues against the existence of a language faculty in the sense in which we defined it: a domain- and species-specific computational cognitive system that can generate arbitrarily complex hierarchical syntactic structure. Lieberman defines language functionally, as a means of “communication,” with human speech as a “key attribute.” as we originally argued [2], while externalized language may be used for communication, the two cannot be equated.

Results

Conclusion