An alternative to Chomsky's concept of language

General discussion about learning languages
Kraut
Black Belt - 2nd Dan
Posts: 2599
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 10:37 pm
Languages: German (N)
French (C)
English (C)
Spanish (A2)
Lithuanian
x 3204

An alternative to Chomsky's concept of language

Postby Kraut » Mon Jan 15, 2018 7:09 pm

The basic idea is that language emerged as a co-evolutionary trait out of other traits that first were not selected for the purpose of speech. Chomsky thinks that there is a language gene that allows us to perform speech like a computer.

http://www.spektrum.de/news/kritik-an-d ... on-chomsky
/1439388?utm_medium=newsletter&utm_source=sdw-nl&utm_campaign=sdw-nl-daily&utm_content=edi

In the second half of the 20th century, the American linguist Noam Chomsky revolutionized our idea of how young children learn their mother tongue. But now his ideas are outdated.
............

All this inevitably leads to the conclusion that the idea of a universal grammar is simply wrong. Of course, scientists don't like to give up their favourite theory even in the face of striking counter-arguments, as long as there is no sensible alternative. But there is now such an alternative: use-based (usage-based) linguistics. The different versions of this theory assume that grammatical structures are not inherent. Grammar is rather the result of history and psychology: on the one hand, languages are handed down from one generation to the next, on the other hand, each generation possesses social and cognitive skills that enable them to acquire language. Above all, the new theory emphasizes that language uses brain systems that have not necessarily been created specifically for this purpose in the course of evolution. This is fundamentally different from Chomsky's idea that there is a gene responsible for recursion.
...............
An alternative to Chomsky's image of language

In accordance with the usage-based approach, children are not born with a special tool for universal grammar learning, but with a series of mental multi-purpose modules for categorization, interpretation of communicative intentions and acquisition of analogies. In this way, the children form grammatical categories and rules out of the language they hear around them.

Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator
---------------------------------------------
Ein neues Bild der Sprache
In der zweiten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts revolutionierte der amerikanische Linguist Noam Chomsky unsere Vorstellung davon, wie Kleinkinder ihre Muttersprache lernen. Doch jetzt erweisen sich seine Ideen als überholt.


All das führt unweigerlich zu der Schlussfolgerung, dass die Idee einer Universalgrammatik schlicht falsch ist. Natürlich geben Wissenschaftler ihre Lieblingstheorie selbst angesichts schlagender Gegenargumente nicht gern auf, solange keine vernünftige Alternative auftaucht. Eine solche Alternative gibt es jetzt aber: die gebrauchsbasierte (usage-based) Linguistik. Die verschiedenen Fassungen dieser Theorie gehen davon aus, grammatische Strukturen seien nicht angeboren. Grammatik ist vielmehr das Ergebnis von Geschichte und Psychologie: Einerseits werden Sprachen von einer Generation zur nächsten tradiert, andererseits besitzt jede Generation soziale und kognitive Fähigkeiten, die ihr den Spracherwerb ermöglichen. Vor allem betont die neue Theorie, dass die Sprache Gehirnsysteme nutzt, die im Lauf der Evolution nicht unbedingt speziell für diesen Zweck entstanden sind. Damit unterscheidet sie sich grundlegend von Chomskys Idee, es gebe ein für die Rekursion verantwortliches Gen.

Eine Alternative zu Chomskys Bild der Sprache

Gemäß dem gebrauchsbasierten Ansatz werden Kinder nicht mit einem Spezialwerkzeug zum universellen Grammatiklernen geboren, sondern mit einer Reihe von mentalen Mehrzweckmodulen für Kategorienbildung, Deutung kommunikativer Absichten und Erfassen von Analogien. Damit bilden die Kinder aus der Sprache, die sie um sich herum hören, grammatische Kategorien und Regeln.
0 x

User avatar
Iversen
Black Belt - 4th Dan
Posts: 4768
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 7:36 pm
Location: Denmark
Languages: Monolingual travels in Danish, English, German, Dutch, Swedish, French, Portuguese, Spanish, Catalan, Italian, Romanian and (part time) Esperanto
Ahem, not yet: Norwegian, Afrikaans, Platt, Scots, Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, Albanian, Greek, Latin, Irish, Indonesian and a few more...
Language Log: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1027
x 14962

Re: An alternative to Chomsky's concept of language

Postby Iversen » Mon Jan 15, 2018 8:35 pm

The experiments with apes (and to some extent parrots and dolphins) show that some animals can learn symbols and use them for communication with humans, but they have so far failed to learn to use any kind of of syntax above simple concatenation of 2-3 elements (and even that only occurs with a few specially reared animal individuals, like the gorilla Koko or the bonobo Panbanisha). So to me it is obvious that there must be something in the human brain that permits us to use extremely complicated syntactical systems to construct new utterances on the fly. My problem with Chomsky is that he thought that the inborn features in syntactical systems could be pinned down as grammatical structures, but that's not a given thing. We may have an inborn capacity to do embedding (although there may be language communities that don't use that capacity like the Pirahã), but I don't think there is much more stored as inherited structures. What we have got must be more like general faculties and less like specific linguistic instincts.

Btw it is hard actually to find a list of Chomsky's universals on the internet, which shows how irrelevant the linguists who defend his general idea have found to pin out and document the details. There is however an alternative in the form of Greenberg's list, which is much more empirically motivated - and doesn't refrain from accepting that even the strongest tendencies may have a few exceptions. The universals of Greenberg mostly look like they have appeared through trial and error processes that also were influenced by non-linguistic factors, and because the existing languages by and large reflect those choices (rather than being totally chaotic) it becomes easier for human children to recognize how languages function. But apparently even ape youngs reared by humans can't discover and use those regularities so their brains must lack something we have got.
4 x

Speakeasy
x 7658

Re: An alternative to Chomsky's concept of language

Postby Speakeasy » Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:20 pm

Quoted from the “The pros and cons of expert academic opinion” discussion thread:

emk wrote: - The experts have an amazing breath and depth of knowledge, and they ought to be respected and taken very seriously.
- But some of the experts are still wrong. Sometimes it's just an individual bozo (I knew a couple of professors...), and sometimes it's an entire field's conventional wisdom...

Xenops wrote: Something I've encountered as I have applied to research assistant positions is that some researchers, despite the gospel of objectivity in science, still have agendas ...
I am in no position to comment Chomsky’s concept of language or on alternative theories. Nevertheless, in support of the above quotes, my life experience informs that human beings are quite capable of advancing their own “agendas” and that their motivations for doing so do not necessarily correlate well with the noble, selfless advance of knowledge for the benefit of humankind or with the interests of others.
2 x


Return to “General Language Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bombobuffoon and 2 guests