Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution

By Ray Jackendoff. 2002

1,282 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6182a4efb8dfde012c7ec3ce87cadbb0104f9170

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Syntactic priming during language comprehension in three- and four-year-old children (2008, background): “A perennial question in theoretical linguistics is how to characterize the relations between syntactic roles, semantic roles, and our knowledge of specific predicates (see e.g., Baker, 1988; Goldberg, 1995; Grimshaw, 1990; Jackendoff, 2002).”
The demise of short-term memory revisited: empirical and computational investigations of recency effects. (2005, background): “Note that whereas an exclusively phonological buffer would be rather limited in its cognitive utility,(15) a buffer that is sensitive to semantic variables is likely to support a wider range of cognitive functions, such as language comprehension (Haarmann, Cameron, & Ruchkin, 2002, 2003; Haarmann, D”
Vector Symbolic Architectures answer Jackendoff's challenges for cognitive neuroscience (2004, background): “However, although a great deal is known about functional localization of various aspects of language in the brain nothing at all is known about how neurons instantiate the details of rules of grammar (Jackendoff, 2002, p. 58).”
The role of frequency in the acquisition of English word order (2005, background): “…more to syntax than the structure that emerges from mapping countless input sequences to semantic representations, or whether we need to appeal to more sophisticated, albeit domain general, architectures to capture the symbolic nature of grammatical relations (Chang, 2002; Jackendoff, 2002).”
Iterated Learning: A Framework for the Emergence of Language (2003, background): “The Iterated Learning Model (ILM), as introduced in Kirby (2001) and Brighton (2002), provides a framework for studying the cultural evolution of language.”
Exposure and input in bilingual development (2017, background): “Words are complex units of language consisting of potentially three autonomous representations: prosodic, morpho-syntactic, and conceptual (Jackendoff, 2002).”
Modularity in cognition: framing the debate. (2006, background): “Clearly, “trombone” did not exist in ancestral environments, but the type TOOL or, at least, ARTIFACT certainly did, and it seems likely that conceptual templates exist that can combine various elements as novel tokens of conceptual types (Boyer, 2001; Jackendoff, 2002; Tooby & Cosmides, 1995).”
The representation of English articles in second language grammars: Determiners or adjectives?* (2008, background): “1 The referent is assumed to exist in the “actual world” in the REALIST tradition of reference, and in the “world [as conceptualised by the language user]” (Jackendoff, 2002, p. 234) on the COGNITIVE understanding of reference.”
From monkey-like action recognition to human language: An evolutionary framework for neurolinguistics (2005, background): “Jackendoff (2002) offers a competence theory with a much closer connection with theories of processing than has been common in generative linguistics and suggests (his sect.”
The representation of abstract words: why emotion matters. (2011, background): “In contrast to amodal theories of semantic and conceptual representation (perhaps best exemplified in the work of Fodor, 1983 and Jackendoff, 2002), embodied theories of cognition (an early example of which is dual coding theory) propose that cognition is grounded in bodily states, modal…”
Resonator Networks, 1: An Efficient Solution for Factoring High-Dimensional, Distributed Representations of Data Structures (2020, background): “Along the way, however, connectionism also gave up many of the rich capabilities offered by symbolic computation (Jackendoff, 2002).”
Pronouns and pointing in sign languages (2013, background): “Indeed, under ‘‘syntacto-centric’’ accounts (see Jackendoff, 2002 for a discussion of syntactocentrism), the fact that pronominal signs clearly behave like pronouns in terms of syntactic distribution might be considered sufficient to downplay any gestural component and analyse them as fully…”