Abstract
Jackendoff and other linguists have acknowledged that there is gradience in language but have tended to treat gradient phenomena as separate from the core of language, which is viewed as fully productive and compositional. This perspective suffuses Jackendoff's (2007) response to our position paper (Bybee and McClelland 2005). We argue that gradience is an inherent feature of language representation, processing, and learning, and that natural language exhibits all degrees of gradience. Contrary to Jackendoff's assertions, we do not reject the possibility of innate constraints on language, feeling only that the jury is out on the nature and specificity of such constraints. We address a number of questions Jackendoff raises about the process of grammaticalization, drawing on extant literature of which he appears to be unaware. We also address Jackendoff's views on the prospect that connectionist models can address core aspects of language processing and representation. Here again extant literature of which Jackendoff seems unaware addresses all four of his general objections to connectionist approaches.
© Walter de Gruyter
