Abstract

In the last years, Chomsky has defended a strong divide between a core, thought-related component of the faculty of language (FL), and a peripheral, sensory-motor dedicated one, in support of which he has mostly drawn from design and evolutionary arguments. This paper adds to these lines of reasoning some evidence from forms of language impairment that, it is argued, may be understood as selectively affecting the latter component (Externalization). Previous accounts suggest that certain variants of specific language impairment (SLI) affect the Syntax–Phonology interface, including the Morphology component. The Linearization converter is also argued to be typically affected, so one might refer to such variants of SLI as instances of a specific externalization impairment (SEXTI). The data presented here suggest comprehension difficulties with object relative clauses in children with SLI, which, contrary to previous analyses, are argued to be due to linearization problems. The main objective of this paper is to illustrate how clinical linguistics may help to define aspects of the evolved linguistic phenotype, like the above-mentioned divide.

Highlights

  • Chomsky has lately endorsed a general architecture of the Faculty of Language based on a strong divide between a thought-related part—a Language of Thought (LOT) and “quite possibly the only such LOT” (Chomsky 2016: 13), and a externalization channel

  • The Minimalist Program might well be described as based on a dualist stance, namely one that differentiates between a LOT system and an Externalization module (EXT), which serves the former in a limited range of public uses (Berwick & Chomsky 2016, Chomsky 2013, 2016)

  • In the previous section we offered support for the idea that Linearization is an extra source of difficulties to children with specific language impairment (SLI), which add to previously reported problems with Morphology and Phonology

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Chomsky has lately endorsed a general architecture of the Faculty of Language based on a strong divide between a (core) thought-related part—a Language of Thought (LOT) and “quite possibly the only such LOT” (Chomsky 2016: 13), and a (peripheral) externalization channel.

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call