Is language innate?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Language » Is language innate? » Is language innate?

Is language innate?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Is language innate?

larryn
SuperChomsky

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 15, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 77

Posted 07/28/08 - 01:30 PM: Subject: Is language innate?	#1
Thanks to the impact of Chomsky's universal grammar theory, it has become popular to believe that language is an innate faculty in the mind. However, more and more linguists are denying this theory and proposing new ideas based on various experiments. What do you think? Are we born with the capacity for language, or is it simply a learned ability? What are some other explainations? Clarity in your answers is greatly appreciated Edited by Postmodern Beatnik on 08/03/08 - 12:53 PM. Reason: forum error

Pete
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 04, 2003
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 474

Posted 07/28/08 - 03:29 PM:	#2
Which linguists do you have in mind?

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 2154

Posted 07/28/08 - 06:18 PM:	#3
larryn wrote: Thanks to the impact of Chomsky's universal grammar theory, it has become popular to believe that language is an innate faculty in the mind. However, more and more linguists are denying this theory and proposing new ideas based on various experiments. What do you think? Are we born with the capacity for language, or is it simply a learned ability? What are some other explainations? Clarity in your answers is greatly appreciated Well, the argument appears to me to be a fallacy -- but I'm not sure which one. The biggest problem is that a linguist who is going around denying theories is very suspicious. A good linguist would propose an alternative theory and build up support for that theory. The kinds of experts that think it is their job to "disprove" a particular theory have some kind of a hidden agenda, feeling threatened by the consequence of the assertion. But maybe I'm just getting jaded by all the anti-scientific crowd. I think that there are major functions of languages that are innate, but maybe the functionalism is too broad. I've played around with some pretty bizarre theoretical languages and found that the brain seems to adapt more readily to a gross categorical model, (nouns and verbs, mostly). It isn't exactly a tautology which can be "denied", there are obvious differences in the details, which have to be learned first. I'm even afraid that our categorical model is so broad that it would basically fit every possible permutation. ... let me add a little "clarity". Supposed I said our understanding of "light" and "dark" as semantic concepts were innate because I notice everybody treating it the same way despite their educational background. However, since every shade of gray is included in my category, I'm applying an arbitrary theory to whatever model I encounter, thus confirming it. I could demonstrate this by creating a different model which included "light", "middle", and "dark" and notice that everyone differentiates the same way. I'm suspicious of language because, even though we make clear logical distinctions between "verb" and "noun", in practice the words are interchangeable -- we constantly use verbs as nouns and nouns as verbs, so maybe the distinction is an arbitrary classification system.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

larryn
SuperChomsky

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 15, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 77

Posted 07/28/08 - 10:54 PM:	#4
Pete wrote: Which linguists do you have in mind? Well...there is Steven Pinker, who is a mix of linguist and cognitive scientist, and is very pro-Chomsky in the sense of language nativism. As for the 'against' linguists, there is Geoffrey Sampson, who directly argued Pinker's The Language Instinct with his own book titled The 'Language Instinct' Debate. George Lakoff & Mark Johnson introduce an 'anti-universal-grammar-ism', if you will, in their book Philosophy in the Flesh, backed by their findings in the recent field of embodied cognition. swstephe wrote: A good linguist would propose an alternative theory and build up support for that theory. What I meant by linguists who deny the theory were linguists who did find other reasons for rejecting universal grammar and who have given alternative explainations, or have at least found too many faults in the theory to completely accept it. Edited by Postmodern Beatnik on 08/03/08 - 01:07 PM

et cetera
thinks too much at work

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 31, 2008
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 185

Posted 07/31/08 - 09:26 AM:	#5
Personally I can see the importance and value of Chomsky's work but I don't think it holds that much weight considering there are languages which differ in syntactical formulation from let us say Anglosaxon formulations. Honestly what seems more tenable as a working hypothesis about language is a mix of sociological and biological learning theories. Though this is not to say that language is not innate per se but more so other innate functions of cognitive processes are responsible for the development of languages and their structure. Which just leads to the question as to how closely grammar and semantics is tied to these processes. Edited by hyena in petticoat on 07/31/08 - 07:29 PM. Reason: Illiteracy (Capitalization and spelling).
Any necessary truth, whether a priori or a posteriori, could not have turned out otherwise. -- Saul Kripke Meaning is what essence becomes when it is divorced from the object of reference and wedded to the word. -- Quine A possible world is given by the descriptive conditions we associate with it - Kripke

Pete
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 04, 2003
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 474

Posted 07/31/08 - 02:21 PM:	#6
larryn wrote: Well...there is Steven Pinker, who is a mix of linguist and cognitive scientist, and is very pro-Chomsky in the sense of language nativism. As for the 'against' linguists, there is Geoffrey Sampson, who directly argued Pinker's The Language Instinct with his own book titled The 'Language Instinct' Debate. George Lakoff & Mark Johnson introduce an 'anti-universal-grammar-ism', if you will, in their book Philosophy in the Flesh, backed by their findings in the recent field of embodied cognition. Thanks. I can understand how someone might argue against an innate UG. If it turns out that there is no UG underlying all natural languages, then there would be no reason to posit an innate representation of this UG in our minds. But I'd be surprised if Chomsky's opponents rejected language nativism, if this is understood as the idea that there must be some innate structure that enables us to learn grammar as quickly as we do given the impoverished evidence available to us. There might not be a dedicated language faculty. I.e. the innate faculty may subserve not only language acquisition, but the acquisition of other non-linguistic abilities as well. Chomsky believed there was a grammar module, but I guess this might be open to question. But it's hard to imagine someone nowadays embracing Skinnerianism about language acquisition, given all the evidence gathered since the 60s revealing unlearned contributions to language acquisition. So is Sampson a Skinnerian, or does he just claim that there is no UG or that there is no dedicated language faculty?

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 2154

Posted 07/31/08 - 06:36 PM:	#7
larryn wrote: What I meant by linguists who deny the theory were linguists who did find other reasons for rejecting universal grammar and who have given alternative explainations, or have at least found too many faults in the theory to completely accept it. It is just very suspicious to phrase it that way, and leading into a lot of fallacies. No theory requires rejection unless they are morally or philosophically opposed the the implications of the theory. What are the implications of a "universal grammar" that make it objectionable? Creationists often use the argument to cast doubt on evolution because they perceive evolution as possibly implying the nullification of some of their other beliefs. An nonreligious biologist is free to choose and test alternative theories to find which one best fits their observations because none of the theories threaten their personal beliefs. Finding a fault in a theory doesn't mean more than theory A doesn't fit observations as well as theory B. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, (that languages and psychology are bound and relative), could be considered an alternative to universal grammar, but most people seem to dispute Sapir-Whorf because it is relativistic. Here is a short article on the subject: http://www.formalontology.it/linguistic-relativity.htm I've seen criticisms that "universal grammar" is so broad that it basically covers any conceivable grammar system, and is therefore unfalsifiable. That is also a non-argument, if theories have faults, they can be refined and narrowed further. I think universal grammar is falsifiable and would love to see an example. Just create a language that has no similarity to the proposed universal grammar, (an alternative grammar), and see if humans could become fluent in the language and the language is capable of nearly equivalent descriptive functionality.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

Deftil
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 28, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 81

Posted 08/01/08 - 01:08 AM:	#8
I really think it's somewhat innate. Other animals seem to have instincts for verbal communication; I don't see why humans would be any different.

Kelby
Cognitive Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 03, 2008
Location: The Fire Nation
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 248

Posted 08/01/08 - 02:32 PM:	#9
Deftil wrote: I really think it's somewhat innate. Other animals seem to have instincts for verbal communication; I don't see why humans would be any different. It depends on what constitutes as communication. If we didn't have language I'm sure we all could still communicate. I think what larryn is trying to get at is not the simple question of whether language is innate or not. Done. Just answer it. I may be wrong...but I believe she may be focusing in on HOW it happened. I'm sure everyone is aware that it is quite insufficient to just say that "we are smart, so we have language." "We are superior humans, therefore language is innate." I can assure you language did not just pop up out of nowhere, appear randomly and set in the laws of universal grammar. This UG had to be devised, sculpted to fit a stable way of communicating the world and things to each other. If we did not have the physical shape we are in now, and let us suppose by nature we were spheres floating around. I'm pretty much sure our current language would not be very efficient because the very words and descriptions we use are reliant on our human bodies. In front, behind, outside, inside. Our very way of understanding and categorizing the world helps shape our concepts and thus our words. Even if we can show that every language follows a strict form of UG, it still could not be concluded that UG is innate. It would not necessarily have to be hardwired in our brains, a priori. It is a possibility that the universal structure is so common because we all have human bodies and we will nonetheless create similar ways of describing ourselves and our world. Larryn points out Lakoff and Johnson...I would point out Stanley Greenspan and Stuart Shanker. Evolution doesn't have to solely work genetically. Language can very well be a learned behavior! That would make it fragile though! Just as hominids learned to cultivate fire, it doesn't mean "fire-making" is innate. However it would ensure a greater survival rate. Perhaps language works within the same bounds.
Embodied Cognition: http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/embodcog.htm#H2

Kelby
Cognitive Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 03, 2008
Location: The Fire Nation
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 248

Posted 08/01/08 - 03:41 PM:	#10
also...I do not believe larryn said in her original post that linguists "rejected" UG. She said they "denied" it. Both words mean something completely different. To deny something is to claim it as not true or accurate. To reject something is to not accept or believe in something, period. She pointed out that some reject aspects of UG for certain reasons, while some deny it because they have not been convinced. I also believe that some ideas can be simply rejected. Not all ideas need to be worked with or refined. If I say juice and penguins live inside my body, echoing everywhere, and create thunder within my liver so that I can fly to the moon, I feel it to be so much easier to reject this idea rather than "refine" it or work with it because all ideas reveal some truth. As for UG, I don't reject it because I believe it can be worked with. but I can see where some linguists would not only deny it, but reject it, because to them the very concept is so blatantly rife with fallacy. A similar example that can illustrate this point is the mind/body problem. Should we work with the idea of the soul and refine soul, or should we just simply reject it because we constantly run into fallacy? Some would say it is impossible to reject it because the word has not lost meaning for the common people. Others like Dennett would say it is the very source of our misunderstandings. Einstein said "The thinking it took to get us into this mess is not the same thinking that is going to get us out of it." So maybe rejection is not so terrible.
Embodied Cognition: http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/embodcog.htm#H2

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.