1 / 23

Outline: More on gestural origins of language Monkey see, monkey do cells Steven Pinker s The Language Instinct

daveigh
Download Presentation

Outline: More on gestural origins of language Monkey see, monkey do cells Steven Pinker s The Language Instinct

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. 1 All Pinker quotes and page refs from the Penguin paperback edition of “The Language Instinct” (it has the cover I show in the first slide referring to Pinker specifically. Note that I haven’t much time to talk about “was it language or some generalised cognitive capacity?” that was selected for by evolution but this stuff is talked about in C&K chaps 2 (Pinker), 7 (Deacon) and a bit in chapt 6 (Tomasello).All Pinker quotes and page refs from the Penguin paperback edition of “The Language Instinct” (it has the cover I show in the first slide referring to Pinker specifically. Note that I haven’t much time to talk about “was it language or some generalised cognitive capacity?” that was selected for by evolution but this stuff is talked about in C&K chaps 2 (Pinker), 7 (Deacon) and a bit in chapt 6 (Tomasello).

    2. 2

    3. 3 on Toth, 1985, see page 205, left column of his BBS commentary.on Toth, 1985, see page 205, left column of his BBS commentary.

    4. 4 on Toth, 1985, see page 205, left column of his BBS commentary.on Toth, 1985, see page 205, left column of his BBS commentary.

    5. 5 on Toth, 1985, see page 205, left column of his BBS commentary. although this Arcadi chap seems to change his tune: in a published paper he claims that chimps don’t vocalise much at all see Arcadi (2000) Vocal responsiveness in male wild chimpanzees: implications for he evolution of language. Journal of Human Evolution 39, 205-233, available thru e-journals. In Corballis’ BBS target article: “There is some evidence, too, that human right-handedness and speech dominance may have been superimposed on a preexisting asymmetry favoring the left cerebral hemisphere in about two-thirds of the population (Corballis 1997). This could perhaps explain why a number of other human asymmetries also approximate this proportion rather than the 90% incidence of right-handedness (Previc 1991). It is perhaps also worth recalling here the evidence of Hopkins (1996) that around two-thirds of captive chimpanzees are right-handed for some activities, although, as we saw earlier, this asymmetry has not been corroborated among chimpanzees in the wild (McGrew & Marchant 1997; 2001) and remains controversial. on Toth, 1985, see page 205, left column of his BBS commentary. although this Arcadi chap seems to change his tune: in a published paper he claims that chimps don’t vocalise much at all see Arcadi (2000) Vocal responsiveness in male wild chimpanzees: implications for he evolution of language. Journal of Human Evolution 39, 205-233, available thru e-journals. In Corballis’ BBS target article: “There is some evidence, too, that human right-handedness and speech dominance may have been superimposed on a preexisting asymmetry favoring the left cerebral hemisphere in about two-thirds of the population (Corballis 1997). This could perhaps explain why a number of other human asymmetries also approximate this proportion rather than the 90% incidence of right-handedness (Previc 1991). It is perhaps also worth recalling here the evidence of Hopkins (1996) that around two-thirds of captive chimpanzees are right-handed for some activities, although, as we saw earlier, this asymmetry has not been corroborated among chimpanzees in the wild (McGrew & Marchant 1997; 2001) and remains controversial.

    6. 6 Rizzolattis group have published a paper claiming auditory mirror neurons. Kohler, E et al. (2002) Science, 297: 846-848.Rizzolattis group have published a paper claiming auditory mirror neurons. Kohler, E et al. (2002) Science, 297: 846-848.

    7. 7 Rizzolattis group have published a paper claiming auditory mirror neurons. Kohler, E et al. (2002) Science, 297: 846-848.Rizzolattis group have published a paper claiming auditory mirror neurons. Kohler, E et al. (2002) Science, 297: 846-848.

    8. 8 Universal grammar, according to Tomasello, is a construct important to a theory of language called “generative grammar”. I treat these as synonyms when I’m reading, for which a linguist would shoot me, I’m sure. generative grammar: NOUN: A linguistic theory that attempts to describe a native speaker's tacit grammatical knowledge by a system of rules that in an explicit and well-defined way specify all of the well-formed, or grammatical, sentences of a language while excluding all ungrammatical, or impossible, sentences. Universal grammar, according to Tomasello, is a construct important to a theory of language called “generative grammar”. I treat these as synonyms when I’m reading, for which a linguist would shoot me, I’m sure. generative grammar: NOUN: A linguistic theory that attempts to describe a native speaker's tacit grammatical knowledge by a system of rules that in an explicit and well-defined way specify all of the well-formed, or grammatical, sentences of a language while excluding all ungrammatical, or impossible, sentences.

    9. 9 much more on Chomskian politics on the web than on his linguistics! If I remember where I got the funky one on the right I’ll add the source.much more on Chomskian politics on the web than on his linguistics! If I remember where I got the funky one on the right I’ll add the source.

    10. 10 nice experiment about how kids “grok” (~understand) the principles of syntax with neologisms: http://scicom.ucsc.edu/SciNotes/9901/tong/tong.htm nice experiment about how kids “grok” (~understand) the principles of syntax with neologisms: http://scicom.ucsc.edu/SciNotes/9901/tong/tong.htm

    11. 11 you don’t have to read this book for the course but I’ve quite enjoyed most of it—he’a a very good writer. He is completely scathing about the ape language stuff and he does talk about how language might have evolved in Chapt 11 “The Big Bang” Michale Tomasello’s review of Pinker is in Cognitive Development 10, 131-156 1995. I got if off the web so its either in e journals or MT has it on his home page. Much of it is about the linguistic details (Greek to me—har har) but some good stuff nevertheless. Steve P’s own home page is http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/ He has a nice editorial on fussiness about language called “Grammar Puss” here: http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/tnr.htmlyou don’t have to read this book for the course but I’ve quite enjoyed most of it—he’a a very good writer. He is completely scathing about the ape language stuff and he does talk about how language might have evolved in Chapt 11 “The Big Bang” Michale Tomasello’s review of Pinker is in Cognitive Development 10, 131-156 1995. I got if off the web so its either in e journals or MT has it on his home page. Much of it is about the linguistic details (Greek to me—har har) but some good stuff nevertheless. Steve P’s own home page is http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/ He has a nice editorial on fussiness about language called “Grammar Puss” here: http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/tnr.html

    12. 12 examples unashamedly stolen from http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/rbeard/acquisition.html Another aside (Shocking!! Will this be on the exam?) re: ape language criticism) “What an irony it is that the supposed attempt to bring Homo sapiens down a few notches in the natural order has taken the form of us humans hectoring another species into emulating our instinctive form of communication, or some artificial form we have invented, as if that were the measure of biological worth. The chimpanzees resistance is no shame on them; a human would surely do no better if trained to hoot and shriek like a chimp, a symmetrical project that makes about as much scientific sense.” (Pinker, 1994; pg. 342).examples unashamedly stolen from http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/rbeard/acquisition.html Another aside (Shocking!! Will this be on the exam?) re: ape language criticism) “What an irony it is that the supposed attempt to bring Homo sapiens down a few notches in the natural order has taken the form of us humans hectoring another species into emulating our instinctive form of communication, or some artificial form we have invented, as if that were the measure of biological worth. The chimpanzees resistance is no shame on them; a human would surely do no better if trained to hoot and shriek like a chimp, a symmetrical project that makes about as much scientific sense.” (Pinker, 1994; pg. 342).

    13. 13

    14. 14 Kosslyn and Rosenberg (2004) tell this story (probably apocryphal, but worth telling anyway): An English professor asked male and female students to punctuate the following: “Woman without her man is a savage”. Males tended to write “Woman, without her man, is a savage.” and females? “Woman: without her, man is a savage.”Kosslyn and Rosenberg (2004) tell this story (probably apocryphal, but worth telling anyway): An English professor asked male and female students to punctuate the following: “Woman without her man is a savage”. Males tended to write “Woman, without her man, is a savage.” and females? “Woman: without her, man is a savage.”

    15. 15 English sentences have to have a noun phrase (NP) and a verb phrase (VP). The shortest English sentence has just three letters “I am”. in Kosslyn and Rosenberg, 2004 (intro Psych text). I can’t remember what IP stands for, however.English sentences have to have a noun phrase (NP) and a verb phrase (VP). The shortest English sentence has just three letters “I am”. in Kosslyn and Rosenberg, 2004 (intro Psych text). I can’t remember what IP stands for, however.

    16. 16 I don’t want to get into any heavy cognitive science here, but “representation” is used by Pinker to mean a symbol which stands for some concept, and the arrangements of symbols to represent logical relationships among many concepts. Another story stolen from Kosslyn and Rosenberg. A woman is having a shower, when all of a sudden the doorbell rings. She yells “who’s there?” and a man answers “Blind man”. So she runs out of the shower and answers the door, naked. After a moment the man says “Where do you want me to put up these blinds?”I don’t want to get into any heavy cognitive science here, but “representation” is used by Pinker to mean a symbol which stands for some concept, and the arrangements of symbols to represent logical relationships among many concepts. Another story stolen from Kosslyn and Rosenberg. A woman is having a shower, when all of a sudden the doorbell rings. She yells “who’s there?” and a man answers “Blind man”. So she runs out of the shower and answers the door, naked. After a moment the man says “Where do you want me to put up these blinds?”

    17. 17

    18. 18

    19. 19 Fed Hoyle was a very accomplished astronomer. There’s an interesting page on this little anecdote and its source here: http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho46a.htm Although this may be a creationist website so who knows about its veracity, but interesting nonetheless!Fed Hoyle was a very accomplished astronomer. There’s an interesting page on this little anecdote and its source here: http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho46a.htm Although this may be a creationist website so who knows about its veracity, but interesting nonetheless!

    20. 20

    21. 21 The Hyrax is the elephants closest living relative, which Pinker says we “would have trouble telling apart from a large guinea pig”The Hyrax is the elephants closest living relative, which Pinker says we “would have trouble telling apart from a large guinea pig”

    22. 22

    23. 23 there are many rebuttals to Pinker on the web. My gut feeling is that they manly have to do with the details of what is universal. After all linguists study the differences, so might prove sensititive about such arguments. The UG idea was (unsurprisingly) based on English wherein word order is pretty damned important. In other languages inflections etc. are much more important. Does the model really fit them all? The second idea is that some of these people don’t like biology for good reasons and bad. Bad because they are anti nature in nature nurture arguments and good in that some evolutionary psychology probably does go too far. But read for yourself!there are many rebuttals to Pinker on the web. My gut feeling is that they manly have to do with the details of what is universal. After all linguists study the differences, so might prove sensititive about such arguments. The UG idea was (unsurprisingly) based on English wherein word order is pretty damned important. In other languages inflections etc. are much more important. Does the model really fit them all? The second idea is that some of these people don’t like biology for good reasons and bad. Bad because they are anti nature in nature nurture arguments and good in that some evolutionary psychology probably does go too far. But read for yourself!

    24. 24 Hauser, Chomsky & Fitch (2002). The faculty of language: what is it, who has it and how did it evolve? Science, 298, 1569-1579. We don’t subscribe to Science any more, but Dr Fitch who is at St Andrews Psych, has it (or had it) on his website. Pinker, S. & Jackendorf, R. (2005). The faculty of language: whats so special about it? Cognition, 95, 201-236. This debate goes on: The evolution of the language faculty: Clarifications and implications W. Tecumseh Fitch,*, Marc D. Hauser, Noam Chomsky, Cognition 2005, 97. 175-210 And of cawse: The nature of the language faculty and its implications for evolution of language (Reply to Fitch, Hauser, and Chomsky). Ray Jackendoff, Steven Pinker 2005 same issue of Cognition Hauser, Chomsky & Fitch (2002). The faculty of language: what is it, who has it and how did it evolve? Science, 298, 1569-1579. We don’t subscribe to Science any more, but Dr Fitch who is at St Andrews Psych, has it (or had it) on his website. Pinker, S. & Jackendorf, R. (2005). The faculty of language: whats so special about it? Cognition, 95, 201-236. This debate goes on: The evolution of the language faculty: Clarifications and implications W. Tecumseh Fitch,*, Marc D. Hauser, Noam Chomsky, Cognition 2005, 97. 175-210 And of cawse: The nature of the language faculty and its implications for evolution of language (Reply to Fitch, Hauser, and Chomsky). Ray Jackendoff, Steven Pinker 2005 same issue of Cognition

More Related