Alguns argumentos contra o inatismo

Edoardo Lombardi Vallauri

doi:10.17851/2237-2083.16.1.9-47

Alguns argumentos contra o inatismo

Edoardo Lombardi Vallauri

Abstract

Neste artigo as premissas fundamentais da visão inatista da capacidade lingüística humana são examinadas. Com base em diversos argumentos, o princípio da pobreza de estímulo é desafiado, assim como outros postulados da teoria que defende uma faculdade da linguagem específica. Argumentos que enfocam a plausibilidade de capacidades cognitivas gerais licenciarem o desenvolvimento lingüístico são apresentados.

Keywords

Pobreza de estímulo; Dispositivo de aquisição da linguagem;Gramática universal.

Full Text:

PDF (Português (Brasil))

References

AKMAJIAN, Adrian; DEMERS, R. A.; FARMER, A.K.; HARNISH, R.M. (1984). Linguistics. An Introduction to Language and Communication. Cambridge (Mass.): Cambridge University Press, 1979.

ANDERSON, John. The Architecture of Cognition. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press, 1983.

BRAINE, M.D.S. The acquisition of language in infant and child. In: REED, C. E. (Ed.). The Learning of Language. New York: Scribners, 1971a.

BRAINE, M.D.S. On two types of models of the internalization of grammars. In: SLOBIN, D. I. (Ed.). The Ontogenesis of Grammar. New York: Academic Press, 1971b. p. 153-186.

BRAINE, M.D.S. What sort of innate structure is needed to “bootstrap” into syntax? Cognition 45, p. 77-100, 1992.

BRAINE, M.D.S.; BROOKS, P. J. Verb argument structure and the problem of avoiding an overgeneral grammar. In: TOMASELLO, M.; MERRIMAN, W. E. (Ed.). Beyond Names for Things: Young Children’s Acquisition of Verbs. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1995. p. 353-376.

BROOKS, Patricia; TOMASELLO, Michael. How young children constrain their argument structure constructions. Language, v. 75, 4, p. 720-738, 1999.

BROOKS, Patricia; TOMASELLO, Michael; LEWIS, Lawrence; DODSON, Kelly. Children’s overgeneralization over fixed transitivity verbs: the entrenchment hypothesis. Child Development, v. 70, p. 1325-1337, 1999.

BYBEE, Joan. The impact of use on representation: grammar is usage and usage is grammar. LSA 2005 Presidential Address. Online at http://www.unm.edu/~jbybee/Bybee plenary.PDF, January 2005, presently being revised for publication.

CAVALLI SFORZA, L. L.; MENOZZI, P.; PIAZZA, A. The History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press, 1994.

CECCHETTO, Carlo; RIZZI, Luigi. A Naturalistic Approach to Language. In: NANNINI, S.; SANDKÜHLER, H. J. (Ed.). Naturalism in the Cognitive Sciences and in the Philosophy of Mind. Bern: Peter Lang, 2000. p. 117-130.

CHOMSKY, C.S. The Acquisition of Syntax in Children from 5 to 10. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press, 1969.

CHOMSKY, Noam. Explanatory models in linguistics. In: NAGEL, E.; SUPPES, P.; TARSKI, A. (Ed.). Logic, Methodology and philosophy of Science. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1962. p. 528-550.

CHOMSKY, Noam. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press, 1965.

CHOMSKY, Noam. Rules and Representations. Oxford: Blackwell, 1980.

CHOMSKY, Noam. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris, 1981a.

CHOMSKY, Noam. Principles and parameters in syntactic theory. In: HORNSTEIN, N.; LIGHTFOOT, D. (Ed.). Explanations in Linguistics. London: Longman, 1981b. p. 32-75.

CHOMSKY, Noam. Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press, 1982.

CHOMSKY, Noam. Knowledge of Language: its Nature, Origin and Use. New York: Praeger, 1986.

CHOMSKY, Noam. Transformational grammar: past. present and future. Language and Literature, Kyoto University, p. 33-80, 1987.

CHOMSKY, Noam. Language and Problems of Knowledge. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press, 1988.

CHOMSKY, Noam. Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In: FREIDIN, R. (Ed.). Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press, 1991. p. 417-454.

CIMATTI, Felice. Ciò che non dimostra la scoperta del gene Foxp2: lingue e linguaggio fra cultura e biologia. In: Sistemi Intelligenti, v. XIX, n.1, p. 25-54, aprile 2007.

COOK, V. J.; NEWSON, M. Chomsky’s Universal Grammar: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell, 1988.

COOK, V. J.; NEWSON, Mark. Chomsky’s Universal Grammar. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.

CRAIN, Stephen; NAKAYAMA, Mineharu. Structure dependence in children’s language. Language, v. 63, p. 522-543, 1987.

DIESEL, H. The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge (Mass.): Cambridge University Press, 2004.

FODOR, J. A. The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press, 1983.

FODOR, J.A.; BEVER, T. G.; GARRETT, M. F. The Psychology of Language: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics and Generative Grammar. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974.

GEENBERG, J. Universals of language. Cambridge (Mass): Cambridge University Press, 1966.

HAWKINS, J.A. (Ed.). Explaining Language Universals. Oxford: Blackwell. J.A. Hawkins, 1988.

HOEKSTRA, Teun; KOOIJ, J. G. The innateness hypothesis. In: HAWKINS, J.A. (Ed.). Explaining Language Universals. Oxford: Blackwell. J.A. Hawkins, 1988. p. 31-55.

HYAMS, Nina. Language Acquisition and the Theory of Parameters. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1986.

LEGATE, J. A.; YANG, C. D. Empirical reassement of poverty of stimulus arguments. The Linguistics Review, n. 19, p. 151-162, 2002.

LIEBERMAN, Philip. The Biology and Evolution of Language. Cambridge (Mass.) and London: Harvard University Press, 1984.

LIEBERMAN, Philip. Uniquely Human. The Evolution of Speech, Thought, and Selfless Behavior. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press, 1991.

LOMBARDI VALLAURI, Edoardo. Spiegare gli universali linguistici. In: LOMBARDI VALLAURI, Luigi (Ed.). Logos dell’essere,logos della norma. Bari: Adriatica, 1999. p. 711-747.

LOMBARDI VALLAURI, Edoardo. The relation between mind and language: The Innateness Hypothesis and the Poverty of the Stimulus. The Linguistic Review, v. 21, p. 345-387, 2004.

MEDAWAR, P. B.; MEDAWAR, J. S. Aristotle to Zoos. A Philosophical Dictionary of Biology. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press, 1983.

MORGAN, J. L. From Simple Input to Complex Grammar. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press, 1986.

MORO, Andrea. “Linguistica mendeliana”, ovvero quali domande su genetica e grammatica? Lingue e linguaggio, v. 1, p. 39-58, 2002.

NEWMEYER, Frederick J. Language Form and Language Function. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 1988.

PIATTELLI PALMARINI, Massimo. Evoluzione, selezione e cognizione: dall’apprendimento al posizionamento di interruttori mentali. Sistemi intelligenti, v. II, n. 3, p. 277-322, 1990.

PIATTELLI PALMARINI, Massimo (Ed.) Théories du langage, théories de l’apprentissage: le débat entre Jean Piaget et Noam Chomsky. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1979.

PINKER, Stephen. Language learnability and language development. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press, 1984.

PINKER, Stephen. The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language. New York: Morrow, 1994.

PULLUM, Geoffrey K.; SCHOLZ, Barbara C. Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. The Linguistic Review 19, 1-2, p. 9-50, 2002.

PUTNAM, Hilary. The ‘innateness hypothesis’ and explanatory models in linguistics. Synthese, v. 17, p. 12-22, 1967.

RAMACHANDRAN, Vilayanur S. Che cosa sappiamo della mente. Milano: Mondadori, 2004.

SAMPSON, Geoffrey R. Exploring the richness of the stimulus. The Linguistic Review, v. 19, 1-2, p. 73-104, 2002.

SAMPSON, Geoffrey R. The ‘Language Instinct’ Debate. London-New York, Continuum, 2005.

SEARLE, J. Chomsky’s revolution in Linguistics. In: HARMAN, G. On Noam Chomsky: critical essays. Amherst (MA): University of Massachusetts Press, 1982.

TOMASELLO, Michael. Do young children have adult syntactic competence?. Cognition, v. 74, p. 209-253, 2000a.

TOMASELLO, Michael. First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics, v. 11, n. 1-2, p. 61-82, 2000b.

TOMASELLO, Michael. Constructing a Language: a Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition. Harvard University Press, 2003.

TROMBETTI, Alfredo. L’unità d’origine del linguaggio. Bologna: Treves, 1905.

ULLMAN, Michael T.; PIERPONT, Elizabeth I. Specific language impairment is not specific to language: the procedural deficit hypothesis. Cortex, v. 41, p. 399-433, 2005.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17851/2237-2083.16.1.9-47