It is widely assumed that human learning and the structure of human languages are intimately related. This relationship is frequently suggested to derive from a language-specific biological endowment, which encodes universal, but communicatively arbitrary, principles of language structure (a Universal Grammar or UG). How might such a UG have evolved? We argue that UG could not have arisen either by biological adaptation or non-adaptationist genetic processes, resulting in a logical problem of language evolution. Specifically, as the processes of language change (...) are much more rapid than processes of genetic change, language constitutes a both over time and across different human populations, and, hence, cannot provide a stable environment to which language genes could have adapted. We conclude that a biologically determined UG is not evolutionarily viable. Instead, the original motivation for UG arises because language has been shaped to fit the human brain, rather than vice versa. Following Darwin, we view language itself as a complex and interdependent which evolves under selectional pressures from human learning and processing mechanisms. That is, languages themselves are shaped by severe selectional pressure from each generation of language users and learners. This suggests that apparently arbitrary aspects of linguistic structure may result from general learning and processing biases deriving from the structure of thought processes, perceptuo-motor factors, cognitive limitations, and pragmatics. (shrink)

Our target article argued that a genetically specified Universal Grammar (UG), capturing arbitrary properties of languages, is not tenable on evolutionary grounds, and that the close fit between language and language learners arises because language is shaped by the brain, rather than the reverse. Few commentaries defend a genetically specified UG. Some commentators argue that we underestimate the importance of processes of cultural transmission; some propose additional cognitive and brain mechanisms that may constrain language and perhaps differentiate humans from nonhuman (...) primates; and others argue that we overstate or understate the case against co-evolution of language genes. In engaging with these issues, we suggest that a new synthesis concerning the relationship between brains, genes, and language may be emerging. (shrink)

This study investigates the joint influences of three factors on the discovery of new word‐like units in a continuous artificial speech stream: the statistical structure of the ongoing input, the initial word‐likeness of parts of the speech flow, and the contextual information provided by the earlier emergence of other word‐like units. Results of an experiment conducted with adult participants show that these sources of information have strong and interactive influences on word discovery. The authors then examine the ability of different (...) models of word segmentation to account for these results. PARSER (Perruchet & Vinter, 1998) is compared to the view that word segmentation relies on the exploitation of transitional probabilities between successive syllables, and with the models based on the Minimum Description Length principle, such as INCDROP. The authors submit arguments suggesting that PARSER has the advantage of accounting for the whole pattern of data without ad‐hoc modifications, while relying exclusively on general‐purpose learning principles. This study strengthens the growing notion that nonspecific cognitive processes, mainly based on associative learning and memory principles, are able to account for a larger part of early language acquisition than previously assumed. (shrink)