In the ongoing philosophical debate over the origins and nature of lexical concepts stemming from the work of Fodor (1970, 1998, 2000, 2008), the potential of first language acquisition studies as a source of evidence has been somewhat overlooked. At the lexical interface with syntax, a restricted set of lexical conceptual elements can be shown to play a pivotal role in the generation of syntactic representations, and patterns of syntactic development can elucidate the nature of such elements. An experiment is described which reveals mature knowledge of interface principles in this domain in early syntactic production. It is argued that first language research of this type can provide much-needed observable evidence for lexical semantic decomposition and against radical concept nativism.
BachK. (2000). Review of Fodor (1998): Concepts: Where cognitive science went wrong. Philosophical Review, 109, 627–632.
2.
BloomP. (2000). How children learn the meanings of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3.
BowermanM. (1981). The child’s expression of meaning: Expanding relationships among lexicon, syntax and morphology. In WinitzH. (Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition (pp. 172–189). New York: New York Academy of Science.
4.
BowermanM. (1982). Reorganizational processes in lexical and syntactic development. In WannerE.GleitmanL. R. (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp. 319–346). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
BowermanM. (1990). Mapping thematic roles onto syntactic functions: Are children helped by innate ‘linking rules’?Journal of Linguistics, 28, 1253–1289.
6.
ChurchlandP. (1986). Neurophilosophy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7.
FodorJ. A. (1970). Three reasons for not deriving ‘kill’ from ‘cause to die’. Linguistic Inquiry, 1, 429–438.
8.
FodorJ. A. (1975). The language of thought. New York: Crowell.
9.
FodorJ. A. (1981). The present status of the innateness controversy. In FodorJ. A. (Ed.), Representations: Philosophical essays on the foundations of cognitive science (pp. 257–316). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10.
FodorJ. A. (1998). Concepts: Where cognitive science went wrong. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
11.
FodorJ. A. (2000). In critical condition: Polemical essays on cognitive science and the philosophy of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12.
FodorJ. A. (2001). Doing without what’s within: Fiona Cowie’s critique of nativism. Mind, 110, 99–148.
13.
FodorJ. A. (2008). LOT 2: The language of thought revisited. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14.
FodorJ. D.FodorJ. A.GarrettM. (1975). The psychological unreality of semantic representations. Linguistic Inquiry, 6, 515–531.
15.
FodorJ. A.GarrettM. F.WalkerE.ParkesC. (1980). Against definitions. Cognition, 8, 263–367.
16.
FodorJ. A.LeporeE. (1998). The emptiness of the lexicon: Reflections on James Pustejovsky’s The Generative Lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry, 29, 269–288.
GentnerD. (1978). On relational meaning: The acquisition of verb meaning. Child Development, 49, 988–998.
19.
GropenJ.PinkerS.HollanderM.GoldbergR. (1991). Affectedness and direct objects: The role of lexical semantics in the acquisition of verb argument structure. Cognition, 41, 153–195.
20.
HamptonJ. A. (1996). Emergent attributes in conceptual combinations. In WardT. B.SmithS. M.ViadJ. (Eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. 83–110). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.
21.
HamptonJ. A. (2000). Concepts and prototypes. Mind and Language, 15, 299–307.
22.
HumeD. (1978). A treatise on human nature. Oxford: Clarendon. (Original work published 1739).
23.
JackendoffR. (1989). What is a concept, that a person may grasp it?Mind and Language, 4, 68–102.
24.
JackendoffR. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25.
JackendoffR. (2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26.
KeilF. C.WilsonR. A. (2000). The concept concept: The wayward path of cognitive science. Mind and Language, 15, 308–318.
27.
KundaZ.MillerD. T.ClareT. (1990). Combining social concepts: The role of causal reasoning. Cognitive Science, 14, 551–578.
28.
LakoffG. (1965). On the nature of syntactic irregularity. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.
29.
LandauB. (2000). Concepts, the lexicon and acquisition: Fodor’s new challenge. Mind and Language, 15, 319–326.
30.
LandauB.GleitmanL. R. (1985). Language and experience: Evidence from the blind child. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
LevinB. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
33.
LockeJ. (1964). An essay concerning human understanding. Cleveland: Meridian. (Original work published 1690).
34.
LoewerB.ReyB. (1991). Meaning in mind: Fodor and his critics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
35.
PeacockeC. (2000). Fodor on concepts: Philosophical aspects. Mind and Language, 15, 327–340.
36.
Piattelli-PalmariniM. (1986). The rise of selective theories: A case study and some lessons from immunology. In DemopoulosW.MarrasA. (Eds.), Language learning and concept acquisition (pp. 117–130). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
37.
Piattelli-PalmariniM. (1989). Evolution, selection and cognition: From ‘learning’ to parameter setting in biology and in the study of language. Cognition, 31, 1–44.
38.
PinkerS. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39.
PinkerS. (2005). So how does the mind work?Mind and Language, 20, 1–24.
40.
PinkerS. (2007). The stuff of thought: Language as a window into human nature. New York: Penguin.
41.
PulmanS. G. (2005). Lexical decomposition: For and against. In TaitJ. I. (Ed.), Charting a new course: Natural language processing and information retrieval: Essays in honour of Karen Spärck Jones (pp. 155–174). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
42.
PustejovskyJ. (1998). Generativity and explanation in semantics: A reply to Fodor and Lepore. Linguistic Inquiry, 29, 289–311.
43.
PutnamH. (1962). The analytic and the synthetic. In FeighH.MaxwellG. (Eds.), Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science, Vol. 3: Scientific explanation, space, and time (pp. 358–397). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
44.
PutnamH. (1988). Representation and reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
45.
RoschE. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 192–233.
46.
RoschE. (1978). Principles of categorization. In RoschE.LloydB. (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
47.
SametJ.FlanaganO. (1989). Innate representations. In SilversS. (Ed.), Rerepresentation (pp. 189–210). New York: Kluwer Academic.
48.
StringerD. (2000). ‘Ground rules’: Locative verbs in first language acquisition. Newcastle and Durham Working Papers in Linguistics, 6, 145–157.
49.
StringerD. (2003). Splitting the conceptual atom: Acquisitional evidence for semantic decomposition. Durham Working Papers in Linguistics, 9, 81–94.
50.
StringerD. (2006). The development of PATHS: Spatial complexity and the multiple predicate strategy. In UnsworthS.ParodiT.SoraceA.Young-ScholtenM. (Eds.), Paths of development in L1 and L2 acquisition (pp. 135–160). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
51.
StringerD. (2008). What else transfers? In SlabakovaR.RothmanJ.KempchinskyP.GavrusevaE. (Eds.), GASLA 9: Proceedings of the 9th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (pp. 233–241). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.
52.
StringerD. (2010). The gloss trap. In HanZ-H.CadiernoT. (Eds.), Linguistic Relativity in SLA: Thinking for Speaking (pp. 102–124). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
53.
TalmyL. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In ShopenT. (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (pp. 57–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
