The Nature-Nurture controversy has been with us since it was first outlined by Plato and Aristotle. Nobody likes it anymore. All reasonable scholars today agree that genes and environment interact to determine complex cognitive outcomes. So why does the controversy persist? First, it persists because it has practical implications that cannot be postponed (i.e., what can we do to avoid bad outcomes and insure better ones?), a state of emergency that sometimes tempts scholars to stake out claims they cannot defend. Second, the controversy persists because we lack a precise, testable theory of the process by which genes and environment interact. In the absence of a better theory, innateness is often confused with (1) domain specificity (Outcome X is so peculiar that it must be innate), (2) species specificity (we are the only species who do X, so X must lie in the human genome), (3) localization (Outcome X is mediated by a particular part of the brain, so X must be innate), and (4) learnability (we cannot figure out how X could be learned, so X must be innate). We believe that an explicit and plausible theory of interaction is now around the corner, and that many of the classic maneuvers to defend or attack innateness will soon disappear. In the interim, some serious errors can be avoided if we keep these confounded issues apart. That is the major goal of this paper, i.e., not to attack innateness but to clarify what

Abstract not found

Abstract not found

Selective deficits in aphasics patients ’ grammatical production and comprehension are often cited as evidence that syntactic processing is modular and localizable in discrete areas of the brain (e.g., Y. Grodzinsky, 2000). The authors review a large body of experimental evidence suggesting that morphosyntactic deficits can be observed in a number of aphasic and neurologically intact populations. They present new data showing that receptive agrammatism is found not only over a range of aphasic groups, but is also observed in neurologically intact individuals processing under stressful conditions. The authors suggest that these data are most compatible with a domain-general account of language, one that emphasizes the interaction of linguistic distributions with the properties of an associative processor working under normal or suboptimal conditions. The primary purpose of this article is to provide empirical arguments in support of a new view of language deficits and their neural correlates, particularly in the realm of syntax. Selective syntactic deficits are often cited as evidence that the human brain contains a bounded and well-defined faculty or module dedicated exclusively to the representation and/or processing of syntax (Caplan & Waters, 1999; Grodzinsky, 1995a,

Readers are sensitive to the fact that verbs may allow multiple subcategorization frames that differ in their probability of occurrence. Although a verbÕs overall subcategorization preferences can be described probabilistically, underlying non-random factors may determine those probabilities. One potential factor is verb semantics: Many verbs show sense differences, and a verbÕs subcategorization profile can vary by sense. Thus, although find can occur with a direct object (DO) or a sentential complement (SC), when it is used to mean ÔlocateÕ it occurs only with a DO, whereas in its ÔrealizeÕ sense it is SC-biased, but can take either frame. We used corpus analyses to identify verbs that occur with both frames, and found that their subcategorization probabilities differ by sense. Off-line sentence completions demonstrated that contexts can promote a specific sense of a verb, which subsequently influenced subcategorization probability. Finally, in a self-paced reading time experiment, verbs occurred in target sentences containing either a structurally unambiguous or ambiguous SC, following a context favoring the verbÕs DO- or SC-biased sense. Sensebiasing context influenced reading times at that, and interacted with ambiguity in the disambiguating region. Thus, readers use sense-contingent subcategorization preferences during on-line language comprehension.

Where does grammar come from? How does it develop in children? Developmental psycholinguists who set out to answer these questions quickly find themselves impaled upon the horns of a dilemma, caught up in a modern variant of the ancient war between empiricists and nativists. Indeed, some of the fiercest battles in this war have been waged in the field of child language. Many reasonable individuals in this field have argued for a middle ground, but such a compromise has proven elusive thus far, in part because the middle ground is difficult to define. So let us begin with some definitions. The core of this debate is about epistemology, a branch of philosophy that we can define as “The study of knowledge, its form and source, and the process by which it comes to be. ” Within this framework, empiricism can be defined as “The belief that knowledge originates in the environment and comes into the mind/brain through the

Most of us would like to believe that the different patterns of language breakdown observed in aphasic patients reflect the way that the human mind and brain are organized for language. However, because so much modern research on aphasia has been carried out in English, it is difficult to separate universal mechanisms from language-specific content. Crosslinguistic com-parisons permit us to disentangle these confounds, while we address one of the most important issues in cognitive neurobiology, the issue of behavioral and neural plasticity: How many different forms can the language processor take under a range of normal and abnormal conditions? We must have an answer to this question if we want to understand what the neural mechanisms responsible for language

“Origins of communicative disorders ” to Elizabeth Bates, and by a grant from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. We are grateful to Larry Juarez and Meiti Opie The effects of focal brain injury are investigated in the first stages of language development, during the passage from first words to grammar. Parent report and/or free speech data are reported for 53 infants and preschool children between 10- 44 months of age. All children had suffered a single, unilateral brain injury to the left or right hemisphere, incurred before six months of age (usually in the pre- or perinatal period). This is the period in which we should expect to see maximal plasticity, but it is also the period in which the initial specializations of particular cortical regions ought to be most evident. In direct contradiction of hypotheses based on the adult aphasia literature, results from 10- 17 months suggest that children with righthemisphere injuries are at greater risk for delays in word comprehension, and in the gestures that normally precede and accompany language onset. Although there were no differences between left- vs. right-hemisphere injury per se on expressive language, children whose lesions include the left temporal lobe did show significantly greater delays in expressive vocabulary and

Cross-linguistic similarities and differences in early lexical and grammatical development are reported for 1001 English-speaking children and 386 Italian-speaking children between 1;6 and 2;6. Parents completed the English or Italian versions of the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventory: Words and Sentences, a parent report instrument that provides information about vocabulary size, vocabulary composition and grammatical complexity across this age range. The onset and subsequent growth of nouns, predicates, function words and social terms proved to be quite similar in both languages. No support was found for the prediction that verbs would emerge earlier in Italian, although Italians did produce a higher proportion of social terms, and there were small but intriguing differences in the shape of the growth curve for grammatical function words. A strikingly similar nonlinear relationship between grammatical complexity and vocabulary size was observed in both languages, and examination of the order in which function words are acquired also yielded more similarities than differences. However, a comparison of the longest sentences reported for a subset of children demonstrates large cross-linguistic differences in the

Heavy-NP shift is the tendency for speakers to place long or "heavy" noun phrase direct objects at the end of a sentence rather than in the canonical post-verbal position. Three experiments using several task variations confirmed that length of the noun phrase influenced the ordering of the noun phrase and prepositional phrase during production. We also found that heavy-NP shift was strongly constrained by the "shifting disposition" of individual verbs. Verbs that do not require their complements (e.g., sentential complements) to appear in an adjacent position yielded more shifting during production than verbs that more frequently appear adjacent to their complements. Analyses of decision/preparation times suggested that shifted and unshifted structures competed for selection. These findings point to the simultaneous activation of lexically derived syntactic representations and ordering options in sentence planning. A multiple constraints framework provides a means of reconciling the e...