|
 |
Introduction to Linguistics? | ||
Tags: Linguistics | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : General discussion |  | |
| Henkkles Triglot Senior Member Finland Joined 4251 days ago 544 posts - 1141 votes  Speaks: Finnish*, English, Swedish Studies: Russian | Message 17 of 32 06 October 2013 at 2:42pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
I think I read somewhere that Steve Pinker is monolingual and try as I might I have to take anything a monolingual writes about language with a spoonful of salt.
2 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| Retinend Triglot Senior Member SpainRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 4306 days ago 283 posts - 557 votes Speaks: English*, German, Spanish Studies: Arabic (Written), French | Message 18 of 32 06 October 2013 at 6:10pm | IP Logged | |||||
I think that although there are controversies between the two "camps" that you are exaggerating how inconclusive the ideas in this book are. I will now try to paint a picture of the situation for people who aren't initiated, although please correct me, Jeffers, if you disagree with the picture (I presume you are from one of the "other camps"?). Ok, so there are these two camps. They're roughly like this. One is the groups called "innatist" are the older group and they argue strongly for a binary-branching model of atomistic "nodes" as the most accurate scientific model for what actually happens in the mind of a language user (an exclusively human attribute). The majority of syntacticians are of this opinion. 
This binary model is said to explain phenomenon such as the recursive nature of language and the ability to embed clauses. It is taken to be a model of nature in the same way that the models of the atom or of seven-dimensional-space-time are models of nature. The "noise" in atmosphere - e.g. ellision in the case of language - merely distorts the "true" underlying form. The other camp are a younger, looser coallition, all dedicated to going beyond the reductive (the strict meaning of the word) approach of the innatists. They are called by names like "connectionist" and "constructivists." Their major weapon has been the discovery, in psychology, of cognitive statistical processing (key phrase - "statistical learning") - a phenomenon which allows patterns to be recognised in data even without paying attention to them - a sort of "background processing". It is essentially argued that "grammar" is nothing but the combinations of words which are said more and are repeatedly re-confirmed. 
With poetic license, this is something like what this camp perceives language to be "like." This is the Lorenz Attractor, which is infinitely complicated and completely unpredictable, yet holds a definite "shape" that can be defined, albiet with a certain fuzziness of boundary. There is no "underlying" form: just an ermergent shape. So both groups are saying that their work is more scientific. Roughly speaking, the innatists claim that the connectionists are less scientific because they have no theory, and the other camp claim that the old Chomskian models are all theory without much support for the entities they propose to exist. For example, in current models of Syntax there are entities such as the "C-command" which assigns attributes from one word to another. The rationale for the existence of such entities is murky even to students of Syntax. But they are necessary to explain phenomenon of word order. The connectionists/constructivists side-step the whole problem by just calling all streams of sounds patterns which are either evidenced or not evidenced. There are no grammar rules internal to the brain in this view. I hope you're still with me... well anyway, as I see it, the "controversy" is here not a matter which puts the contents of The Language Instinct into jeopardy. What is in this book is the story of how a completely different camp - Behaviorism - was put into its grave by the Chomsky-led Cognitive Revolution. Now, nobody supports behaviorist theories on language today. The notions which Chomsky introduced are absolutely unavoidable. The connectionists and constructivists are almost entirely reacting against a conception of language which has had influence for a couple of generations. If you want to learn about modern Linguistics you will necessarily have to learn about this behaviourist/generative grammar split (generative grammar is another word for the theories of the innatists I talked about) and Pinker's book is simply the best one out there as an introduction. Jeffer's post is very fair-minded, but perhaps it gives too much value to the younger movement in linguistics. They have been around for less time. As unfair as it is, perhaps it's an expedient to get a grounding in the authodox viewpoint before launching into heated, ongoing debates. You might find out tthat everything you read in The Language Instinct needs to be chucked out, but it does represent the mainstream of thinking in the subject for the longest time in living memory. Pinker is critical of the more speculative aspects of Chomsky's own writings, e.g. with regard to the redundant processing of "irregular verbs" into an unpronounced regular form before finally to its its irregular form (I hope I'm remembering that right). Finally, it should be said that Chomsky's name is dirt to a lot of language enthusiasts simply because the science he initiated is viewed as "unweaving the rainbow"; ruining the romance of language. Also many philosophers hate him because "oridnary language philosophy" and "speech act theory" has only slight relevance, or no place at all in the work that has followed his insights. But if you come across any viewpoint which seeks to completely diminish Chomsky's influence or paint him as the leader of a small but devoted, "cultish", academic enclave, that viewpoint is probably voiced far outside of the mainstream, since the opponents of innatist theories are knowingly the "vanguard" of linguistic theory.
That would be foolish. Steven Pinker is a superb writer and serious thinker. Also, reading a book of his would explain why his object of study isn't language as it's spoken. 4 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| Henkkles Triglot Senior Member Finland Joined 4251 days ago 544 posts - 1141 votes Speaks: Finnish*, English, Swedish Studies: Russian | Message 19 of 32 06 October 2013 at 8:44pm | IP Logged | |||||
I know you probably didn't mean to, but you essentially said that skepticism is foolish. Taking something with a grain/spoonful of salt is not disregarding it. I have thought of reading his book and I probably will now that I'm reminded of it, I just don't believe _everything_ first hand. 2 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| Elexi Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 5563 days ago 938 posts - 1840 votes Speaks: English* Studies: French, German, Latin | Message 20 of 32 06 October 2013 at 11:30pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
Here is a goody - John Searle's balanced assessment of Chomsky:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1972/jun/29/a-speci al-supplement-chomskys- revolution-in-lingui/?pagination=false 2 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| Retinend Triglot Senior Member SpainRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 4306 days ago 283 posts - 557 votes Speaks: English*, German, Spanish Studies: Arabic (Written), French | Message 21 of 32 07 October 2013 at 3:34pm | IP Logged | |||||
Well okay but what I was calling "foolish" was the reason, not the skepticism. You also said "spoon"full of salt, which implies that you won't take ANYTHING he says seriously. "Pinch" of salt would imply that you are only being skeptical. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Retinend Triglot Senior Member SpainRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 4306 days ago 283 posts - 557 votes Speaks: English*, German, Spanish Studies: Arabic (Written), French | Message 22 of 32 07 October 2013 at 3:58pm | IP Logged | |||||
I can't follow this link, anyone else? 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Elexi Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 5563 days ago 938 posts - 1840 votes Speaks: English* Studies: French, German, Latin | Message 23 of 32 07 October 2013 at 5:10pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
Strangely the link is DOA
Still it is an old and famous article, so the Web has it elsewhere: http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/19720629.htm 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Juаn Senior Member Colombia Joined 5343 days ago 727 posts - 1830 votes Speaks: Spanish* | Message 24 of 32 07 October 2013 at 7:42pm | IP Logged | |||||
This is exceedingly interesting on its own right but you can see how it touches only tangentially on the actual practice of learning foreign languages. Beyond the material covered in a standard introductory linguistics textbook, if learning documented foreign languages is the object, a proper study of linguistics can be only of very marginal relevance. The article itself is a fabulous read and the subject matter fascinating, however reading such a long text off an electronic screen is torture and I wasn't able to get far. What is the best treatment of the subject in proper printed book form? I've read The Language Instinct and while worthwhile, it is certainly not it. 1 person has voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
