Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-5kfdg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-25T11:16:41.390Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Essentialism gives way to motivation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

Adele E. Goldberg
Adele E. Goldberg
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08540. adele@princeton.eduhttp://www.princeton.edu/~adele
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The recognition that contentful universals are rare and often “banal” does not undermine the fact that most non-universal but recurring patterns of language are amenable to explanation. These patterns are sensical or motivated solutions to interacting and often conflicting factors. As implied by the Evans & Levinson's (E&L's) article, linguistics would be well served to move beyond the essentialist bias that seeks universal, innate, unchanging categories with rigid boundaries.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 32 , Issue 5 , October 2009 , pp. 455 - 456
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anderson, P. W. (1972) More is different. Science 177(4047):393–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burzio, L. (2002) Missing players: Phonology and the past-tense debate. Lingua 112(3):157–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, M. H. & Chater, N. (2008) Language as shaped by the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31(5):489–509; discussion 509–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coppock, E. (2008) The logical and empirical foundations of Baker's paradox. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001) Radical construction grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, S. (2003) The essentialist child: Origins of essentialism in everyday thought. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. & Boyd, J. K. (2009) Learning what not to say: Categorization, preemption and discounting in a-adjectives. Unpublished manuscript, Princeton University.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. (1985) Iconicity in syntax. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (2006) The tortuous route from genes to behaviour: A neuroconstructivist approach. Cognitive, Affective and Behavioural Neuroscience 6(1):9–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lakoff, G. (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lander, E. S. (1994) Genetic dissection of complex traits. Science 265:2037–2048.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayr, E. (1975) Evolution and the diversity of life. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2004) What kind of evidence could refute the UG hypothesis? Commentary on Wunderlich. Studies in Language 28(3):642–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar