I see myself agreeing with the fact that language is evolved, since it is clear that all the organs responsible for language have evolved from the great apes for us to produce language. From the brain to our vocal chords since neither of these are suited for language purposes in great apes. I believe that yes there is a part of UG that is innate but that there is also a part of grammar that doesn’t come to us unless we learn through trial and error. I agree with the fact that we could feel that something is wrong with “I yesterday eat an apple” even if we still understand it as “I ate an apple yesterday” but sometimes even people who have gone to school and learned the “rules” of grammar make mistakes, not much of a difference between the 2 examples since you still understand what they are trying convey but one is a little bit better then the other. This also made me think about the difference between us and other primates especially the great apes who have been able to learn around 500-1000 symbols and type them to convey what they meant, I read somewhere that they could even point to what they wanted. This made me think about symbol grounding and how these apes are able to conduct a symbol manipulation of language. Obviously this isn’t all there is to language and it is the way we manipulate these symbols, grammar, that made our language what it is. Moreover as to what made our language evolve symbol grounding isn’t the answer as I agree with the fact that language evolve for social purposes.
In response to Daliah since I'm having technology problems with the reply section:
"As the author points out, different approaches to understanding language have stemmed from specific fields of thought and often manage to leave out important knowledge from other fields."
"I also think part of the problem is that many theories attempt to explain all aspects of language under one umbrella where it might be more relevant to look at different aspects of language separately."
I agree with you Daliah that the present methods of understanding language leave much to be desired. Breaking down language into different aspects is one way to understand it better, much in the way complex mechanisms such as DNA replication are taught in steps and phases. However, I also think that language theorists should be trying to collaborate instead of pushing against each other. All the different theories can contribute useful parts to make a quilt-type umbrella theory that may be closer to a grand theory for universal language. This disjunction is actually a bigger issue within scientific researcher in general. In some ways, that is why cognitive sceince is an exciting and refreshing field, because there is more of an attempt to incorporate different approaches and research. However, the uptake is still slow, as we've seen with this article and many others we've read throughout the semester.
Understanding language as a modular, and thus a highly specialized mechanism formed from natural selection rather than a product of a general logic of the brain has huge implications for artificial intelligence. In order to create a robot which can have language in the way we do, we would somehow have to simulate the intense periods of trial and error that evolved our language into what it is today, i.e. second guess them. If we are seeing language as adaptively produced, it is then grounded in evolutionary specific experiences, ones which we have no direct access to. As Pinker notes, it is very possible that the intermediary or homologous language structures in the past are from species which no longer exist. If we think that language is produced in a domain general way (i.e. that language arises due to a general logic of our brain and not by highly specialized structures with their own internal logic) then language is a process divorced from specific evolutionary experiences, that has a logical essence which can be understood without the context of its formation. All we have to do is think up a logic that leads to language. This understanding of language seems more in line with a computational theory of mind which sees mind as following one program code, independent of its status as a brain (i.e. independent of its evolutionary specificity). I wonder why (and how) Pinker and other people who believe in the evolutionary or adaptive nature of language can simultaneously subscribe to a computational theory of mind, when they themselves agree that the evolutionary (historical) specificity is crucial to the instantiation of these structures and defy any general logic and total logic. If we agree with an evolutionary approach to language and further to mind, then we must also agree that the way in which our language capacities evolved (its history) is paramount to understanding the language faculties themselves and their mode of being.
“The system begins with an architectural constraint: the necessary four spandrels and their tapering triangular form. they provide space in which the mosaicists worked; tey set the set the quadripartite symmetry of the dome above”
To comment on the article itself, Pinker and bloom successfully rehabilitate the potential for language as a product of Darwinian natural selection, and I would says successfully prove that natural selection at least plays a role the evolution of natural language. But without a doubt, there must be incidental (i.e. non-designed) aspects of language evolution as well. Pinker and Bloom recognize that the spandrels are a crucial part to the formation of something of higher complexity which is pointed at in the above passage. Language (and moreover any adaptation) requires previous adapted structures (be they mental or physical) in which to build itself on. Thus the question of whether or not something is designed or incidental becomes moot, depending fully on where you delineate the beginning and end of the system or structure of interest. The spandrels themselves are evolutionary domes on top of other spandrels which are themselves domes and so on.
Pinker and Bloom's article addresses how and why we acquired language.
They refute the arguments made by evolutionists who claim that language follows Darwin's theory is adapted because it's advantage in survival and reproducing. They argue that not all survival advantages are gained from adaption. Especially for "spandrels": features that are not intended in the original design but turns out to be useful. Bird wings, for example, besides helping birds flying, can also used by birds to block sun reflection when flying over water.
This paper thoroughly presented the evidence for the evolution of language through natural selection and likens language to other biological systems. Pinker and Bloom base this conclusion in that "language shows signs of complex design for the communication of propositional structures, and the only explanation for the origin of organs with complex design is the process of natural selection". They bring up the evidence for universal grammar (rules which have not found to be broken in any language, and therefore kids have no basis for which learn them, so these rules must be innate). However Pinker and Bloom caution that cognitive development and language competence shouldn't be considered to be the same.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI see myself agreeing with the fact that language is evolved, since it is clear that all the organs responsible for language have evolved from the great apes for us to produce language. From the brain to our vocal chords since neither of these are suited for language purposes in great apes.
ReplyDeleteI believe that yes there is a part of UG that is innate but that there is also a part of grammar that doesn’t come to us unless we learn through trial and error. I agree with the fact that we could feel that something is wrong with “I yesterday eat an apple” even if we still understand it as “I ate an apple yesterday” but sometimes even people who have gone to school and learned the “rules” of grammar make mistakes, not much of a difference between the 2 examples since you still understand what they are trying convey but one is a little bit better then the other.
This also made me think about the difference between us and other primates especially the great apes who have been able to learn around 500-1000 symbols and type them to convey what they meant, I read somewhere that they could even point to what they wanted. This made me think about symbol grounding and how these apes are able to conduct a symbol manipulation of language. Obviously this isn’t all there is to language and it is the way we manipulate these symbols, grammar, that made our language what it is. Moreover as to what made our language evolve symbol grounding isn’t the answer as I agree with the fact that language evolve for social purposes.
In response to Daliah since I'm having technology problems with the reply section:
ReplyDelete"As the author points out, different approaches to understanding language have stemmed from specific fields of thought and often manage to leave out important knowledge from other fields."
"I also think part of the problem is that many theories attempt to explain all aspects of language under one umbrella where it might be more relevant to look at different aspects of language separately."
I agree with you Daliah that the present methods of understanding language leave much to be desired. Breaking down language into different aspects is one way to understand it better, much in the way complex mechanisms such as DNA replication are taught in steps and phases. However, I also think that language theorists should be trying to collaborate instead of pushing against each other. All the different theories can contribute useful parts to make a quilt-type umbrella theory that may be closer to a grand theory for universal language. This disjunction is actually a bigger issue within scientific researcher in general. In some ways, that is why cognitive sceince is an exciting and refreshing field, because there is more of an attempt to incorporate different approaches and research. However, the uptake is still slow, as we've seen with this article and many others we've read throughout the semester.
Understanding language as a modular, and thus a highly specialized mechanism formed from natural selection rather than a product of a general logic of the brain has huge implications for artificial intelligence. In order to create a robot which can have language in the way we do, we would somehow have to simulate the intense periods of trial and error that evolved our language into what it is today, i.e. second guess them. If we are seeing language as adaptively produced, it is then grounded in evolutionary specific experiences, ones which we have no direct access to. As Pinker notes, it is very possible that the intermediary or homologous language structures in the past are from species which no longer exist.
ReplyDeleteIf we think that language is produced in a domain general way (i.e. that language arises due to a general logic of our brain and not by highly specialized structures with their own internal logic) then language is a process divorced from specific evolutionary experiences, that has a logical essence which can be understood without the context of its formation. All we have to do is think up a logic that leads to language. This understanding of language seems more in line with a computational theory of mind which sees mind as following one program code, independent of its status as a brain (i.e. independent of its evolutionary specificity).
I wonder why (and how) Pinker and other people who believe in the evolutionary or adaptive nature of language can simultaneously subscribe to a computational theory of mind, when they themselves agree that the evolutionary (historical) specificity is crucial to the instantiation of these structures and defy any general logic and total logic. If we agree with an evolutionary approach to language and further to mind, then we must also agree that the way in which our language capacities evolved (its history) is paramount to understanding the language faculties themselves and their mode of being.
“The system begins with an architectural constraint: the necessary four spandrels and their tapering triangular form. they provide space in which the mosaicists worked; tey set the set the quadripartite symmetry of the dome above”
To comment on the article itself, Pinker and bloom successfully rehabilitate the potential for language as a product of Darwinian natural selection, and I would says successfully prove that natural selection at least plays a role the evolution of natural language. But without a doubt, there must be incidental (i.e. non-designed) aspects of language evolution as well. Pinker and Bloom recognize that the spandrels are a crucial part to the formation of something of higher complexity which is pointed at in the above passage. Language (and moreover any adaptation) requires previous adapted structures (be they mental or physical) in which to build itself on. Thus the question of whether or not something is designed or incidental becomes moot, depending fully on where you delineate the beginning and end of the system or structure of interest. The spandrels themselves are evolutionary domes on top of other spandrels which are themselves domes and so on.
Pinker and Bloom's article addresses how and why we acquired language.
ReplyDeleteThey refute the arguments made by evolutionists who claim that language follows Darwin's theory is adapted because it's advantage in survival and reproducing. They argue that not all survival advantages are gained from adaption. Especially for "spandrels": features that are not intended in the original design but turns out to be useful. Bird wings, for example, besides helping birds flying, can also used by birds to block sun reflection when flying over water.
This paper thoroughly presented the evidence for the evolution of language through natural selection and likens language to other biological systems. Pinker and Bloom base this conclusion in that "language shows signs of complex design for the communication of propositional structures, and the only explanation for the origin of organs with complex design is the process of natural selection". They bring up the evidence for universal grammar (rules which have not found to be broken in any language, and therefore kids have no basis for which learn them, so these rules must be innate). However Pinker and Bloom caution that cognitive development and language competence shouldn't be considered to be the same.
ReplyDelete