Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol 2, No 8 (2012), 1656-1661, Aug 2012
doi:10.4304/tpls.2.8.1656-1661

Modularity of Mind and Second Language Acquisition

Houman Bijani, Alaeddin Nahvi

Abstract


The concept of modularity has become significant in philosophy and psychology since the early 1980s, following the publication of Fodor's ground-breaking book The Modularity of Mind (1983). In the twenty-five years since the term ‘module’ and its cognates first entered the lexicon of cognitive science, the conceptual and theoretical landscape in this area has changed thoroughly. A critical issue in this regard has been the development of evolutionary psychology, whose proponents argue that the architecture of the mind is more pervasively modular than the Fodorian perspective allows. Where Fodor (2005) draws the line of modularity at the low-level systems underlying perception and language, post-Fodorian theorists such as Carruthers (2008) contend that the mind is modular through and through, that is, up to and including the high-level systems responsible for thought. The concept of modularity has also played a role in recent debates in epistemology, philosophy of language, and other core areas of philosophy.


Keywords


modularity of mind; Chomskyan Modularity; Fodorian Modularity; Massive Modularity

References


 

[1] Barrett, H. C. (2005). Enzymatic computation and cognitive modularity. Mind & Language, 20, 259-287.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0268-1064.2005.00285.x

[2] Barrett, H. C., & Kurzban, R. (2006). Modularity in cognition: Framing the debate. Psychological Review, 113, 628-647.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.3.628
PMid:16802884

[3] Botterill, G., & Carruthers, P. (1999). The philosophy of psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612428

[4] Brook, A., & Akins, K. (Eds.). (2005). Cognition and the brain: The philosophy and neuroscience movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[5] Carroll, S. E. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

[6] Carruthers, P. (2006). The Architecture of the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199207077.001.0001

[7] Carruthers, P. (2008). On Fodor‘s problem. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

[8] Carruthers, P., & Chamberlin, A. (Eds.). (2000). Evolution and the human mind: Modularity, language and meta-cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[9] Chomsky, N. (1972). Language and Mind: Enlarged Edition. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

[10] Cohen, S. H. (1996). Modularity and principles and parameters: Avoiding the cognitively ugly. First Language, 16, 1-19.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014272379601604601

[11] Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In J. Barkow, L. Cosmides & J. Tooby (Eds.), The Adapted Mind (pp. 163–228). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[12] Crystal, D. (2008). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (6th ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781444302776

[13] Dudai, Y. (2002). Memory from A to Z. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[14] Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[15] Field, J. (2004). Psycholinguistics: The key concepts. New York: Routledge.

[16] Fodor, J. A. (1990). A Theory of Content and Other Essays. Cambridge: MIT Press.

[17] Fodor, J. (2005). Reply to Steven Pinker ‗So how does the mind work?‘ Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

[18] Frankenhuis, W. E., & Ploeger, A. (2007). Evolutionary psychology versus Fodor: Arguments for and against the massive modularity hypothesis. Philosophical Psychology, 20(6), 687-696.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09515080701665904

[19] Gernsbacher, M. A., & Foertsch, J. A. (1999). Three models of discourse comprehension. In S. Garrod & M. Pickering (Eds.), Language processing. London: Psychology Press.

[20] Gregg, K. R. (2003). The stage of emergentism in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 19(2), 95-128.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/0267658303sr213oa

[21] Ingram, J. C. (2007). Neurolinguistics: An introduction to spoken language processing and its disorders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[22] Jenkins, L. (2000). Biolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605765

[23] Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[24] Jordan, G. (2004). Theory construction in second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

[25] McGilvray, J. (2005). Cambridge companion to Chomsky. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CCOL0521780136

[26] Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

[27] Perkins, M. (2007). Pragmatic impairment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486555

[28] Pinker, S. (1997). How the Mind Works. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

[29] Smith, N. (1999). Chomsky: Ideas and ideals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139163897

[30] Sperber, D. (1994). The modularity of thought and the epidemiology of representations. In L. A. Hirschfeld & S. A. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the Mind (pp. 39–67). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511752902.003

[31] Sperber, D. (2002). In defense of massive modularity. In I. Dupoux (Ed.), Language, Brain, and Cognitive Development (pp. 47–57). Cambridge: MIT Press.

[32] Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2002). Pragmatics, modularity and mind-reading. Mind & Language, 17, 3-23.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00186

[33] Sugayama, K., & Hudson, R. A. (Eds.). (2005). Word grammar. London: Continuum.

[34] Taylor, T. J. (1996). Generative linguistics: A historical perspective. New York: Routledge.

[35] Trask, R. L. (1999). Key concepts in language and linguistics. New York: Routledge.

[36] Van Valin, R. (1991). Functionalist linguistic theory and language acquisition. First Language, 11, 7-40.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014272379101103102

[37] Wodak, R., & Chilton, P. (Eds.). (2005). A new agenda in critical discourse analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

[38] Zobl, H. (1989). Modularity in adult L2 acquisition. Language Learning, 39(1), 49-79.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1989.tb00591.x


Full Text: PDF


Theory and Practice in Language Studies (TPLS, ISSN 1799-2591)

Copyright @ 2006-2012 by ACADEMY PUBLISHER – All rights reserved.