Biolinguistics (E-Journal)
Not a member yet
250 research outputs found
Sort by
The Non-Biological Evolution of Grammar: Wh-Question Formation in Germanic
No full textThe wh-marking of questions in child English is as early as the appearance of the wh-questions themselves. The wh-marking of questions in child Dutch (and the other Germanic languages) is delayed until the acquisition of articles and free anaphoric pronouns. An acquisition procedure is proposed that succeeds to set first a typological difference, V2 for Dutch and SVfinO for English. The different setting of the typological parameters determines the wh-development in subsequent acquisition steps. The learnability approach relativizes Chomsky’s poverty of the stimulus, but affirms his position that language is ‘perfect’ in the sense of being learnable as a cultural construct without the assumption of innate grammar-specific a prioris
The Third Factor in Phonology
No full textThis article attempts to investigate how much of phonology can be explained by properties of general cognition and the Sensorimotor system — in other words, third-factor principles, in support of the evolutionary scenario posed by Hauser et al. (2002a). It argues against Pinker & Jackendoff’s (2005: 212) claim that “major characteristics of phonology are specific to language (or to language & music), [and] uniquely human,” and their conclusion that “phonology represents a major counterexample to the recursion-only hypothesis.” Contrary to the statements by Anderson (2004) and Yip (2006a, 2006b) to the effect that phonology has not been tested in animals, it is shown that virtually all the abilities that underlie phonological competence have been shown in other species
Prolegomena to a Future Science of Biolinguistics
No full textThis essay reviews some of the problems that face biolinguistics if it is to someday succeed in understanding human language from a biological and evolutionary viewpoint. Although numerous sociological problems impede progress at present, these are ultimately soluble. The greater challenges include delineating the computational mechanisms that underlie different aspects of language competence, as implemented in the brain, and under-standing the epigenetic processes by which they arise. The ultimate chal-lenge will be to develop a theory of meaning incorporating non-linguistic conceptual representations, as they exist in the mind of a dog or chimpan-zee, which requires extensions of information theory incorporating context-dependence and relevance. Each of these problems is daunting alone; to-gether they make understanding the biology of language one of the most challenging sets of problems in modern science
On Parametric (and Non-Parametric) Variation
No full textThis article raises the issue of the correct characterization of ‘Parametric Variation’ in syntax and phonology. After specifying their theoretical commitments, the authors outline the relevant parts of the Principles–and–Parameters framework, and draw a three-way distinction among Universal Principles, Parameters, and Accidents. The core of the contribution then consists of an attempt to provide identity criteria for parametric, as opposed to non-parametric, variation. Parametric choices must be antecedently known, and it is suggested that they must also satisfy seven individually necessary and jointly sufficient criteria. These are that they be cognitively represented, systematic, dependent on the input, deterministic, discrete, mutually exclusive, and irreversible
Ceaseless, Unpredictable Creativity: Language as Technology
No full textNotions like ‘biolinguistics’ have a trivial and a non-trivial interpretation. According to the trivial version, a cultural phenomenon like language is only based on our innate biological capacities. Language, in this view, is not a matter of biology per se but of applied biology, i.e. a form of technology. Under this interpretation, ‘biolinguistics’ is uncontroversial and trivial because all our cultural activities are grounded in our biology. According to the non-trivial interpretation, the concept of language can be sufficiently narrowly construed so that we can define a core capacity that is comparable to a biological organ (like the heart or the liver). Recently, it has become common to see this ‘faculty of language in the narrow sense’ (FLN) as some abstract form of syntax characterized by recursive Merge. According to this article, only the trivial interpretation of ‘biolinguistics’ is correct. It does not make sense to define language in such a way that it excludes words. Words are human inventions and the necessary tools to give linguistic functionality to whatever biological capacities for recursive syntax we may have. Ultimately, this means that only ‘lexicalist’ versions of generative grammar can be correct. The agentive function assignment involved in the invention of words distinguishes language from bodily organs, which do not derive their functionality from human agency. More generally, cultural transparency of biological structures is rejected as an ideological form of Panglossian determinism and a denial of the “ceaseless creativity” and freedom coming with human agency
