Language, language development, language acquisition ....

James_S_Saint · August 30, 2014, 8:31pm

Not wanting to derail, but perhaps a little slow, can you explain your language of “S”, “P”, “VP”, “NP”, and so are to represent (preferably in English )?

Arminius · August 30, 2014, 9:41pm

Yes, but first I must bring the child to bed.

“S”, “NP”, “VP”, “PP”, “N”, “V”, “Prep”, “Det”, and others are part of the synatx tree (diagramm, a.k.a. “phrase marker”) which belongs to Chomsky’s “Transformational Generative Grammar” (“TGG”).

S = Sentence
NP = Noun Phrase
VP = Verbal Phrase
PP = Prepositional Phrase
N = Noun
V = Verb
Prep = Preposition
Det = Determiner

The resulting sentence could be: “The dog ate the bone”. Such a tree diagram is also called a phrase marker. They can be represented more conveniently in text form, (though the result is less easy to read); in this format the above sentence would be rendered as:
[S [NP [D The ] [N dog ] ] [VP [V ate ] [NP [D the ] [N bone ] ] ] ]

Philosophically, you don’t have to know the details of Chomsky’s linguistic theory, James. But if you are interested in his linguistic theory in general, in his generative grammar as far as it is interesting for philosophy, and in Chomsky hierarchy which is not only interesting for linguistics but also for mathematics and computer science (cp. machines), then please read at first the follwing article:

Wikipedia:

[size=120]Linguistic theory[/size]

The basis to Chomsky’s linguistic theory is that the principles underlying the structure of language are biologically determined in the human mind and hence genetically transmitted.[118] He therefore argues that all humans share the same underlying linguistic structure, irrespective of socio-cultural difference.[119] In this he opposes the radical behaviourist psychology of B.F. Skinner, instead arguing that human language is unlike modes of communication used by any other animal species.[120]

Chomskyan linguistics, beginning with his Syntactic Structures, a distillation of his Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory (1955, 75), challenges structural linguistics and introduces transformational grammar.[121] This approach takes utterances (sequences of words) to have a syntax characterized by a formal grammar; in particular, a context-free grammar extended with transformational rules.

Perhaps his most influential and time-tested contribution to the field is the claim that modeling knowledge of language using a formal grammar accounts for the “productivity” or “creativity” of language. In other words, a formal grammar of a language can explain the ability of a hearer-speaker to produce and interpret an infinite number of utterances, including novel ones, with a limited set of grammatical rules and a finite set of terms. He has always acknowledged his debt to Pāṇini for his modern notion of an explicit generative grammar, although it is also related to rationalist ideas of a priori knowledge.

A popular misconception is that Chomsky proved that language is entirely innate, and that he discovered a “universal grammar” (UG). Chomsky simply observed that while a human baby and a kitten are both capable of inductive reasoning, if they are exposed to exactly the same linguistic data, the human will always acquire the ability to understand and produce language, while the kitten will never acquire either ability. Chomsky labeled whatever the relevant capacity the human has that the cat lacks as the language acquisition device (LAD), and he suggested that one of the tasks for linguistics should be to determine what the LAD is and what constraints it imposes on the range of possible human languages. The universal features that would result from these constraints are often termed “universal grammar” or UG.[122] Though Chomsky generated the universal grammar theory with the belief that language is uniquely human, a series of studies from various laboratories have shown the existence of acquired language in several great ape species, including common chimpanzees,[123][124][125][126][127][128][129] bonobos,[129][130] gorillas,[131] and orangutans.[132] Thus, great apes at least partially possess whatever mental functions might underlie the LAD, and are therefore important species of study for exploring the neural basis of language.

Chomsky’s ideas have had a strong influence on researchers of language acquisition in children, though many researchers in this area such as Elizabeth Bates[133] and Michael Tomasello[134] argue very strongly against Chomsky’s theories, and instead advocate emergentist or connectionist theories, explaining language with a number of general processing mechanisms in the brain that interact with the extensive and complex social environment in which language is used and learned.
Generative grammar
Different grammatical deep structures of a sentence Time flies 1.svg Time flies 2.svg Time flies 3.svg Time flies 4.svg

[size=120]Generative grammar[/size]

The Chomskyan approach towards syntax, often termed generative grammar, studies grammar as a body of knowledge possessed by language users. Since the 1960s, Chomsky has maintained that much of this knowledge is innate, implying that children need only learn certain parochial features of their native languages.[135] The innate body of linguistic knowledge is often termed universal grammar. From Chomsky’s perspective, the strongest evidence for the existence of Universal Grammar is simply the fact that children successfully acquire their native languages in so little time. Furthermore, he argues that there is an enormous gap between the linguistic stimuli to which children are exposed and the rich linguistic knowledge they attain (the “poverty of the stimulus” argument). The knowledge of Universal Grammar would serve to bridge that gap.

Chomsky’s theories have been immensely influential within linguistics, but they have also received criticism. One recurring criticism of the Chomskyan variety of generative grammar is that it is Anglocentric and Eurocentric, and that often linguists working in this tradition have a tendency to base claims about Universal Grammar on a very small sample of languages, sometimes just one. Initially, the Eurocentrism was exhibited in an overemphasis on the study of English. However, hundreds of different languages have now received at least some attention within Chomskyan linguistic analyses.[136][137][138][139][140] In spite of the diversity of languages that have been characterized by UG derivations, critics continue to argue that the formalisms within Chomskyan linguistics are Anglocentric and misrepresent the properties of languages that are different from English.[141][142][143] Thus, Chomsky’s approach has been criticized as a form of linguistic imperialism.[144] In addition, Chomskyan linguists rely heavily on the intuitions of native speakers regarding which sentences of their languages are well-formed. This practice has been criticized on general methodological grounds. Some psychologists and psycholinguists,[who?] though sympathetic to Chomsky’s overall program, have argued that Chomskyan linguists pay insufficient attention to experimental data from language processing, with the consequence that their theories are not psychologically plausible. Other critics (see language learning) have questioned whether it is necessary to posit Universal Grammar to explain child language acquisition, arguing that domain-general learning mechanisms are sufficient.

Today there are many different branches of generative grammar. One can view grammatical frameworks such as head-driven phrase structure grammar, lexical functional grammar, and combinatory categorial grammar as broadly Chomskyan and generative in orientation, but with significant differences in execution.
Chomsky hierarchy

[size=120]Chomsky hierarchy[/size]

Chomsky is famous for investigating various kinds of formal languages and whether or not they might be capable of capturing key properties of human language. His Chomsky hierarchy partitions formal grammars into classes, or groups, with increasing expressive power, i.e., each successive class can generate a broader set of formal languages than the one before. Interestingly, Chomsky argues that modeling some aspects of human language requires a more complex formal grammar (as measured by the Chomsky hierarchy) than modeling others. For example, while a regular language is powerful enough to model English morphology, it is not powerful enough to model English syntax. In addition to being relevant in linguistics, the Chomsky hierarchy has also become important in computer science (especially in compiler construction and automata theory).[145] Indeed, there is an equivalence between the Chomsky language hierarchy and the different kinds of automata. Thus theorems about languages are often dealt with as either languages (grammars) or automata.

That’s SCIENCE, and that’s PHILOSOPHY too!

Only_Humean · September 1, 2014, 10:14pm

If you don’t have anything to contribute to a discussion besides snide personal attacks, you’ll find yourself warned and banned fairly quickly on the Philosophy board.

Arminius · November 12, 2014, 11:19pm

Language is the competence to form infinte linguistic terms with a finite inventory of linguistic forms. It has much to do with thoughts, mentality, conceptions, beliefs, imaginations, conventions, experiences, awareness, knowledge, information, communication … and so on. It is such a complex system that one could say that machines could never reach this high competence that humans have. But it is merely a question of time whether machines will be able to use language like humans do. So when?

1mpious · November 12, 2014, 11:31pm

Arminius, I think you yourself have something to learn about language.

Arminius · November 12, 2014, 11:37pm

Really? If so, then: why do you think so? And b.t.w.: why are you a crack dealer?

1mpious · November 13, 2014, 12:09am

Regarding your meme, I think it’s a fair point: gotta learn to speak before you can talk. But reading your work is like trying to understand a computer program. [EDIT: entirely] tedious; a real master of language knows better. And I think you can tell why I’m a crack dealer.

[size=1]117[/size]

Arminius · November 13, 2014, 12:27am

My next-to-last post refers to one of my other threads, namely this one: Will machines completely replace all human beings? It’s an interesting thread. Do you know it?

No, Impious, because I don’t know you.

1mpious · November 13, 2014, 12:59am

Check the edit. I usually only post in the off topic section where we keep it all short and sweet, not really my style to mill through sustained pieces.

Arminius · November 13, 2014, 1:33am

I guess you mean something like these examples:

Because I do not want to derail my own thread, I link to this post:
[list][list][list][list][list][list][list][list][list]
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=179879&p=2506760#p2506760
[/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u]

Arminius · February 9, 2015, 1:08am

No. Speech is very much more than that.

Prismatic567 · February 9, 2015, 4:07am

I agree with the above but
note the difference in views between Chomsky and George Lakoff & Johnson.

Chomsky’s theory assumed that the structure of language is “autonomous” — independent of meaning and communication. In 1963, George stumbled upon the first of hundreds of counterexamples.
georgelakoff.com/press/academic-biography/

In the topic of language we need to take into account the Broca’s area within the brain, its development and maintenance.

Like any other mental fields, the theory and philosophy of language should be presented within a systematic framework but not to the extent of being too pedantic and dogmatic.

Arminius · February 9, 2015, 11:50pm

I know Chomsky’s language theory very well, because I have studied linguistics as well. Philosophically, Chomsky is influenced by the German philosophers Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and Wilhelm von Humboldt.

Arminius · February 13, 2015, 6:42pm

Do you know Daniel L. Everett?

The newest “alternative” to Chomsky?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEjJgvuH-RU[/youtube] [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii-ppBYsPKY[/youtube]
[tab][youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIbD7O79Goc[/youtube] [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QNZJSQLim0[/youtube][/tab]

Universal Grammar

Everett eventually concluded that Chomsky’s ideas about universal grammar, and the universality of recursion in particular, are falsified by Pirahã. His 2005 article in Current Anthropology, titled “Cultural Constraints on Grammar and Cognition in Pirahã,”[3] has caused a controversy in the field of linguistics.[2][4] Though a supporter of Everett in the early part of Everett’s career, Chomsky refuses to further discuss Everett’s works and has called him a charlatan.[5] The June 2009 issue of the Journal of the Linguistic Society of America, Language, contains a nearly 100 page debate between Everett and some of his principal critics.

Don’t Sleep, There Are Snakes: Life and Language in the Amazonian Jungle

In November 2008, Everett’s book on the culture and language of the Pirahã people, and what it was like to live among them, was published in the United Kingdom by Profile Books and in the United States by Pantheon Books. Blackwell’s booksellers in the UK selected this as one of the best books of 2009 in the UK. National Public Radio selected it as one of the best books of 2009 in the US. Translations have appeared in German, French, and Korean and others are due to appear in 2010 in Thai, and Mandarin. Although the book has been discussed widely on the internet for the chapter that discusses his abandonment of religious faith, it is mainly about doing scientific field research and the discoveries that this has led to about the grammar and culture of the Pirahã people. Don’t Sleep, There Are Snakes was runner-up for the 2008 Award for Adult Non-fiction from the Society of Midland Authors.[6]

Language: The Cultural Tool

This book develops an alternative to the view that language is innate. It argues that language is, like the bow and arrow, a tool to solve a common human problem, the need to communicate efficiently and effectively.[7][8]
Religious beliefs

Influenced by the Pirahã’s concept of truth, his belief in Christianity slowly diminished and he became an atheist. He says that he was having serious doubts by 1982, and had abandoned all faith by 1985. He would not tell anyone about his atheism until the late '90s;[9] when he finally did, his marriage ended in divorce and two of his three children broke off all contact. However, by 2008 full contact and relations have been restored with his children, who now seem to accept his viewpoint on theism.[10]

See also:
Pirahã language
Pirahã people

[size=80]References

Curriculum Vitae
Colapinto, John (April 16, 2007). “The Interpreter: Has a remote Amazonian tribe upended our understanding of language?”. The New Yorker. Retrieved December 30, 2014.
Daniel Everett, “Cultural Constraints on Grammar and Cognition in Pirahã”, Current Anthropology, Volume 46, Number 4, August–October 2005, pp. 621-46.
Robin H. Ray, “Linguists doubt exception to universal grammar”, MIT News, April 23, 2007.
Folha de S.Paulo, 1 February 2009.
2008 Award of the Society of Midland Authors for adult nonfiction
daneverettbooks.com/
Bartlett, Tom (March 20, 2012). “Angry Words”. Chronicle of Higher Education.
Barkham, Patrick (10 November 2008). “The power of speech”. The Guardian (London).
Middleton, Liz Else, Lucy (2008-01-19). “Interview: Daniel Everett”. New Scientist.[/size]