Is Universal Grammar ready for retirement? A short review of a longstanding misinterpretation
Resumen: In this paper I consider recent studies that deny the existence of Universal Grammar (UG), and I show how the concept of UG that is attacked in these works is quite different from Chomsky’s, and thus that such criticisms are not valid. My principal focus is on the notions of ‘linguistic specificity’ and of ‘innateness’, and I conclude that, since the controversy about UG is based on misinterpretations, it is rendered sterile and thus does unnecessary harm to linguistic science. I also address the underlying reasons for these misunderstandings and suggest that, once they have been clarified, there is much scope for complementary approaches that embrace different research traditions within current theoretical linguistics.
Idioma: Inglés
DOI: 10.1017/S0022226718000166
Año: 2018
Publicado en: JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS 54 (2018), 1-30
ISSN: 0022-2267

Factor impacto JCR: 1.125 (2018)
Categ. JCR: LINGUISTICS rank: 69 / 182 = 0.379 (2018) - Q2 - T2
Factor impacto SCIMAGO: 0.675 - Language and Linguistics (Q1) - Philosophy (Q1) - Linguistics and Language (Q1)

Financiación: info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/ES/MINECO-FEDER/FFI2017-82460-P
Tipo y forma: Article (PostPrint)
Área (Departamento): Área Lingüística General (Dpto. Lingüíst. Gral. e Hisp.)

Creative Commons You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. You may not use the material for commercial purposes. If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material.


Exportado de SIDERAL (2023-12-19-13:59:19)


Visitas y descargas

Este artículo se encuentra en las siguientes colecciones:
Articles > Artículos por área > Lingüística General



 Record created 2023-12-19, last modified 2023-12-19


Postprint:
 PDF
Rate this document:

Rate this document:
1
2
3
 
(Not yet reviewed)