I remember Doug Medin from the year I was at Illinois and I recall a colloquium talk Frank Keil gave at Michigan State that intrigued me because he echoed ideas from Kant about the synthetic à priori, but I didn’t get a chance to ask him more about it.
As far as Fodor’s line goes, I’m generally sympathetic to faculty psychology, if only because it comports with the ways mathematicians and programmers analyze and synthesize functions and structures, but I find the faculties required to enable intelligence and inquiry interact with each other and mutually recur far too intricately to deserve the name modules in the strictest technical sense.
Still, if all we’re talking about is a native knack or a natural instinct for latching onto subsumptions wherever they may occur then I could go along with that for the sake of further argument.
I agree with previous comments that “subsumption” suffers from a surfeit of senses but here’s a couple of places where I found it natural to use “subsumes” or one of its synonyms, once in a logical sense and once in a grammatical sense.
There are reasons coming out of Peirce’s logic and also category theory for this usage but I’ll have to save that for another time.