Biolinguistics (E-Journal)
Not a member yet
250 research outputs found
Sort by
The Non-Hierarchical Nature of the Chomsky Hierarchy-Driven Artificial-Grammar Learning
No full textRecent artificial-grammar learning (AGL) paradigms driven by the Chomsky hierarchy paved the way for direct comparisons between humans and animals in the learning of center embedding ([A[AB]B]). The AnBn grammars used by the first generation of such research lacked a crucial property of center embedding, where the pairs of elements are explicitly matched ([A1 [A2 B2] B1]). This type of indexing is implemented in the second-generation AnBn grammars. This paper reviews recent studies using such grammars. Against the premises of these studies, we argue that even those newer AnBn grammars cannot test the learning of syntactic hierarchy. These studies nonetheless provide detailed information about the conditions under which human adults can learn an AnBn grammar with indexing. This knowledge serves to interpret recent animal studies, which make surprising claims about animals’ ability to handle center embedding
Conceptual and Methodological Problems with Comparative Work on Artificial Language Learning
No full textSeveral theoretical proposals for the evolution of language have sparked a renewed search for comparative data on human and non-human animal computational capacities. However, conceptual confusions still hinder the field, leading to experimental evidence that fails to test for comparable human competences. Here we focus on two conceptual and methodological challenges that affect the field generally: 1) properly characterizing the computational features of the faculty of language in the narrow sense; 2) defining and probing for human language-like computations via artificial language learning experiments in non-human animals. Our intent is to be critical in the service of clarity, in what we agree is an important approach to understanding how language evolved
What Is Un-Cartesian Linguistics?
No full textUn-Cartesian linguistics is a research program with the aim of rethinking the nature of grammar as a domain of scientific inquiry, raising new questions about the constitutive role of grammar in the organization of our (rational) minds and selves. It reformulates the ‘Cartesian’ foundations of the modern Universal Grammar project, shifting emphasis away from the study of a domain-specific ‘innate’ module separate from thought, to the study of a sapiens-specific mode of cognition conditioned by both grammatical and lexical organization, and thus a particular cognitive phenotype, which is uniquely also a linguistic one. The purpose of this position paper is to introduce and motivate this new concept in its various dimensions and in accessible terms, and to define the ‘Un-Cartesian Hypothesis’: that the grammaticalization of the hominin brain in the evolutionary transition to our species uniquely explains why our cognitive mode involves a capacity for thought in a propositional format
Biolinguistics or Physicolinguistics? Is the Third Factor Helpful or Harmful in Explaining Language?
No full textNoam Chomsky (2005) proposed that a ‘third factor’, consisting of general principles and natural laws, may explain core properties of language in a principled manner, minimizing the need for either genetic endowment or experience. But the focus on third-factor patterns in much recent bio-linguistic work is misguided for several reasons: First, ‘the’ third factor is a vague and disparate collection of unrelated components, useless as an analytical tool. Second, the vagueness of the third factor, together with the desire for principled explanations, too often leads to sweeping claims, such as syntax “coming for free, directly from physics”, that are unwarranted without a case-by-case causal analysis. Third, attention is diverted away from a proper causal analysis of language as a biological feature. The point with biolinguistics is to acknowledge the language faculty as a biological feature. The best way forward towards an understanding of language is to take the biology connection seriously, instead of dabbling with physics
Is Word Order Asymmetry Mathematically Expressible?
No full textThe computational procedure for human natural language (CHL) shows an asymmetry in unmarked orders for S, O, and V. Following Lyle Jenkins, it is speculated that the asymmetry is expressible as a group-theoretical factor (included in Chomsky’s third factor): “[W]ord order types would be the (asymmetric) stable solutions of the symmetric still-to-be-discovered ‘equations’ governing word order distribution”. A possible “symmetric equation” is a linear transformation f(x) = y, where function f is a set of merge operations (transformations) expressed as a set of symmetric transformations of an equilateral triangle, x is the universal base vP input expressed as the identity triangle, and y is a mapped output tree expressed as an output triangle that preserves symmetry. Although the symmetric group S3 of order 3! = 6 is too simple, this very simplicity is the reason that in the present work cost differences are considered among the six symmetric operations of S3. This article attempts to pose a set of feasible questions for future research
The Creative Aspect of Language Use and the Implications for Linguistic Science
No full textThe creative aspect of language use provides a set of phenomena that a science of language must explain. It is the “central fact to which any significant linguistic theory must address itself” and thus “a theory of language that neglects this ‘creative’ aspect is of only marginal interest” (Chomsky 1964: 7–8). Therefore, the form and explanatory depth of linguistic science is restricted in accordance with this aspect of language. In this paper, the implications of the creative aspect of language use for a scientific theory of language will be discussed, noting the possible further implications for a science of the mind. It will be argued that a corollary of the creative aspect of language use is that a science of language can study the mechanisms that make language use possible, but that such a science cannot explain how these mechanisms enter into human action in the form of language use
