A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF MORPHOLOGY AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR NATIVISM

In this article I explore some of the arguments pertaining to word-structure used by the nativists to bolster the idea that language is part of our genetic endowment. The focal point of this analysis will centre primarily on the arguments put forth by Steven Pinker in his various works, regarding the morphological constraints supposedly imposed on language by our genetically hard-wired language faculty. Peter Gordon's work on English compounding will also be critically evaluated. I contend that these allegedly innate constraints are wrongly construed as such, and can easily be explained without postulating a 'language acquisition device', as contingent cultural and environmental factors suffice when trying to explain the morphological phenomena Pinker believes can only be explained by the innate constraints of universal grammar. Hence, this strand of the nativist's paradigm needs to be seriously re-evaluated as the original conclusions drawn by theorists like Pinker and Gordon are flawed.