ReviewIntegrative psychological & behavioral science2024
A Critical Perspective on the (Neuro)biological Foundations of Language and Linguistic Cognition.
Review in Integrative psychological & behavioral science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The biological foundations of language reflect assumptions about the way language and biology relate to one another, and with the rise of biological studies of language, we appear to have come closer to a deep understanding of linguistic cognition-the part of cognition constituted by language. This article argues that relations of neurobiological and genetic instantiation between linguistic cognition and the underlying biological substrate are ultimately irrelevant to understanding the higher-level structure and form of language. Linguistic patterns and those that make up the character of cognition constituted by language do not simply arise from the biological substrate because higher-level structures typically assume forms based on constraints that only emerge once these new levels are constructed. The goal is not to show how the mapping problem between linguistic cognition and neurobiology can be solved. Rather, the goal is to show the mapping problem ceases to exist once a different understanding of language-(neuro)biology relations is embraced. With this goal, this article first uncovers a number of logical and conceptual fallacies in strategies deployed in understanding language-(neuro)biology relations. After having shown these flaws, the article offers an alternative view of language-biology relations that shows how biological constraints shape language (nature and form), making it what it is.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36562960What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.