What is Wrong, and What is Right, about Current Theories of Language, in the Light of Evolution?

Two extreme and contrasting positions held currently by various researchers in language evolution are compared. Each position comprises five ideas which contradict the corresponding ideas in the other position. In Extreme Position A, there was a single biological mutation, creating a new unique cog...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: James R. Hurford
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Associazione Culturale Humana.Mente 2014-12-01
Series:Humana.Mente: Journal of Philosophical Studies
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.humanamente.eu/index.php/HM/article/view/100
id doaj-1928df9a761542768d1ebce9cb500098
record_format Article
spelling doaj-1928df9a761542768d1ebce9cb5000982020-11-25T02:28:48ZengAssociazione Culturale Humana.MenteHumana.Mente: Journal of Philosophical Studies1972-12932014-12-01727What is Wrong, and What is Right, about Current Theories of Language, in the Light of Evolution?James R. Hurford0University of Edinburgh, UK Two extreme and contrasting positions held currently by various researchers in language evolution are compared. Each position comprises five ideas which contradict the corresponding ideas in the other position. In Extreme Position A, there was a single biological mutation, creating a new unique cognitive domain, Language, immediately enabling unlimited command of complex structures via Merge, used primarily for advanced private thought, and only derivatively for public communication (internalism), not promoted by natural selection. By contrast, in Extreme Position B, there were many cumulative biological mutations, allowing expanded interaction of pre-existing cognitive domains — no new domain was created, gradually enabling command of successively more complex structures, used primarily for public communication, and derivatively for advanced private thought (externalism), promoted by natural selection. These extreme positions are not hypothetical ‘straw men’, insofar as prominent researchers exist who adopt each of them. At the end of this paper I will present a ‘scorecard’ summarizing which parts of the two extreme positions are justified by available evidence. http://www.humanamente.eu/index.php/HM/article/view/100nativismdomain specificitygradualism
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author James R. Hurford
spellingShingle James R. Hurford
What is Wrong, and What is Right, about Current Theories of Language, in the Light of Evolution?
Humana.Mente: Journal of Philosophical Studies
nativism
domain specificity
gradualism
author_facet James R. Hurford
author_sort James R. Hurford
title What is Wrong, and What is Right, about Current Theories of Language, in the Light of Evolution?
title_short What is Wrong, and What is Right, about Current Theories of Language, in the Light of Evolution?
title_full What is Wrong, and What is Right, about Current Theories of Language, in the Light of Evolution?
title_fullStr What is Wrong, and What is Right, about Current Theories of Language, in the Light of Evolution?
title_full_unstemmed What is Wrong, and What is Right, about Current Theories of Language, in the Light of Evolution?
title_sort what is wrong, and what is right, about current theories of language, in the light of evolution?
publisher Associazione Culturale Humana.Mente
series Humana.Mente: Journal of Philosophical Studies
issn 1972-1293
publishDate 2014-12-01
description Two extreme and contrasting positions held currently by various researchers in language evolution are compared. Each position comprises five ideas which contradict the corresponding ideas in the other position. In Extreme Position A, there was a single biological mutation, creating a new unique cognitive domain, Language, immediately enabling unlimited command of complex structures via Merge, used primarily for advanced private thought, and only derivatively for public communication (internalism), not promoted by natural selection. By contrast, in Extreme Position B, there were many cumulative biological mutations, allowing expanded interaction of pre-existing cognitive domains — no new domain was created, gradually enabling command of successively more complex structures, used primarily for public communication, and derivatively for advanced private thought (externalism), promoted by natural selection. These extreme positions are not hypothetical ‘straw men’, insofar as prominent researchers exist who adopt each of them. At the end of this paper I will present a ‘scorecard’ summarizing which parts of the two extreme positions are justified by available evidence.
topic nativism
domain specificity
gradualism
url http://www.humanamente.eu/index.php/HM/article/view/100
work_keys_str_mv AT jamesrhurford whatiswrongandwhatisrightaboutcurrenttheoriesoflanguageinthelightofevolution
_version_ 1724836282897530880