/ 15
60%
Table of contents

Document in text mode:

DiscussionThe nature of the language faculty and itsimplications for evolution of language(Reply to Fitch, Hauser, and Chomsky)*Ray Jackendoffa, Steven Pinker b, *aDepartment of Psychology, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA 02454, USAbCenter for Cognitive Studies, Department of philosophy, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155, USAReceived 17 March 2005; accepted 12 April 2005AbstractIn a continuation of the conversation with Fitch, Chomsky, and Hauser on the evolution of language,we examine their defense of the claim that the uniquely human, language-specific part of the languagefaculty (the “narrow language faculty”) consists only of recursion, and that this part cannot beconsidered an adaptation to communication. We argue that their characterization of the narrowlanguage faculty is problematic for many reasons, including its dichotomization of cognitivecapacities into those that are utterly unique and those that are identical to nonlinguistic or nonhumancapacities, omitting capacities ...