Herb:
I recognize my biases and limitations. Due to the incomplete nature
of my knowledge all messages I write will present a distorted, and
biased perspective on issues. But I don't think that Simpson iss a
major theoretician of the cognitive grammar model. I mentioned him
simply because he offeres a pertinent critique of Chomsky's T-G and
MP main claims. Van Valin and Williams also point to the same issues
in Chomksy's perspective on language. Some of the criticism points
which I consider quite important are:
1. His deductive,and not inductive, approach to language.
2. The syntactocentric perspective, which limits the study of
language to the study of grammar.
3. The unproven idea of a UG ( which is different from the idea that
languages have many similar characteristics.
4. The unproven Innateness Hypothesis.
5. The idea that language processing in the brain is modular ( in
contradiction to the latest brain research).
6. The notion that meaning is largely irrelevant in language, and
that the goal of language research is to discover the structures that
underlie language.
7. The unproven notion of a dual language layer (deep/surface
structure).
8.The unproven, "natural," transformations and movement rules.
9. The extremely theoretical and abstract nature of his theory of
language which makes T-G and MP impractical for language education.
*****
There might be some other things which could be said about Chomsky's
language theory, but the above suffice to show that there is very
little practical, that is, instructional value, in his perspective.
Eduard
On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote...
>Eduard,
>
>You very slightly misrepresent the status of arguments on the
innateness =
>hypothesis. While I agree with Sampson that the Innateness
Hypothesis =
>is seriously underdetermined by the data, Sampson's alternative is
also =
>too vaguely stated to be called a hypothesis. While I tend to opt
for =
>the cognitivist position, that's a matter of opinion and
temperament, =
>not of fact. We don't as yet know enough about either language or =
>cognition to claim that a certain relationship exists between them.
=
>Such claims may be interestingly argued but cannot be anywhere near =
>conclusive. Sampson doesn't falsify (and you didn't claim this) =
>Pinker's position. Rather he shows that we can't yet support one =
>position or the other empirically. In such a situation I incline =
>towards the less specific. There is a strong philosophical
tradition =
>beyond inclining towards the more specific too, especially since the
=
>stronger position is more explicit and therefore easier to falsify.
=
>While I have an opinion, I am agnostic as to the outcome of the
debate. =
>I suspect both sides are wrong.
>
>Herb
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
Eduard =
>C. Hanganu
>Sent: Sun 9/3/2006 4:29 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: On innate knowledge of language
>=20
>Robert:
>
>I do not want to assume that you are not familiar with what
implies=20
>providing "bibliographical information" in support of a
hypothesis.=20
>You are not providing the information requested. Instead, you are=20
>making reference to Pinker's "The Language Instinct." But, as Herb=20
>has corroborated, Sampson has already provided evidence that
Pinker's=20
>case is too weak to be considered. You also mention an article
which=20
>you have not read. Are we moving into anecdotal? My request stands:
>Please provide BIBLIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION, for the Innateness=20
>Hypothesis,as Chomsky and Pinker state it, that is, research
evidence=20
>that language is innate, and not, as cognitive linguistics
affirms,=20
>part of the human cognitive process.
>
>
>Eduard=20
>
>
>
>On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, Robert Yates wrote...
>
>>Eduard has an interesting challenge.
>>
>>>>> [log in to unmask] 09/03/06 7:46 AM >>>
>>
>>Please, be so kind and provide the bibliographical information
which=20
>>includes research that shows evidence that children "know=20
>>(unconsciously) what a noun [ or other part of speech] is." I=20
>haven't=20
>>found yet such evidence in all the language literature I have read.
=20
>>
>>***
>>If children did not know what nouns are unconsciously we might
expect
>>all kinds of "errors" around nouns. For example, we might have the
>>articles in very strange position, we might have the plural "s"=20
>attached
>>to words that can't be pluralized, we might expect comparative and
>>superlative morphology attached to nouns, we might expect
scrambled=20
>word
>>order in apparently noun phrases.
>>
>>I don't know of ANY research that shows children's confusion with
>>respect to nouns or any category. Perhaps, Eduard could share us
the
>>evidence that kids don't know what nouns are.
>>
>>Pinker, in The Language Instinct, notes that there is no child
data=20
>with
>>the following kinds of errors for yes-no questions. (See the
Chapter
>>Baby Born Talking, p. 276 in my edition for this discussion)
>>
>>He is smiling -- Does he be smiling?
>>She could go. Does she could go?
>>
>>If you teach ESL, you have heard such examples in the questions
of=20
>ESL
>>students. Why is it kids learning English understand how "do"
works=20
>for
>>questions and adult L2 learners can have very different principles?
=20
>If
>>language principles are not innate, we should expect some kids to=20
>have
>>"wild" grammars with respect to this property of the English=20
>auxiliary
>>system.
>>
>>Of course, there is PUBLISHED evidence that meets Eduard's=20
>challenge.=20
>>One example is summarized in Pinker (Chapter 5, pages 129 +). (I
have
>>not read the actual paper). It is work by Peter Gordon with
compound
>>nouns. Notice the following property with compound nouns. In the
>>compound, irregular plurals are possible; regular plurals aren't.
>>
>>1a) purple people eater
>> b) purple baby eater
>> c) *purple babies eater
>>
>>2 a) cookie monster
>> b) *cookies monster (What kind of monster would only eat ONE
>>cookie?)
>>
>>3) a) rat catcher
>> b) *rats catcher
>>
>>Actually, if I had a lot of rats in my house (in other words, it
was
>>rat-infested, but not *rats-infested) I would want all of the rats
>>caught, not just one.
>>
>>Gordon tested this contraint on compound structures on three and
five
>>year old kids with questions like the following:
>>
>>Experimenter: Here is a monster who eats mud. What do you call=20
>him? =20
>>Kid: A mud-eater.
>>
>>Experimenter: Here is a monster who eats mice. What do you call
him?
>>Kid: A mice-eater.
>>
>>And, the crucial question is the following:
>>Experimenter: Here is a monster who eats rats. What do you call him?
>>
>>According to Pinker, Gordon found that his 3 and 5 year old kids all
>>responded: A rat-eater.
>>
>>Think about the kind of knowledge a kid needs to have to
recognize=20
>that
>>even though irregular plurals can be used in such compounds but=20
>regular
>>plurals can't. And, remember the immediate INPUT.
>>
>>What do you call a monster that eats RATS? The input in this=20
>question
>>would favor *"rats-eater."
>>
>>I have no idea what the story is if kids don't know what a noun
is=20
>and
>>the different properties of IRREGULAR and REGULAR nouns.
>>
>>Perhaps, Eduard will let us know.=20
>>
>>Bob Yates, Central Missouri State University
>>
>>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web=20
>interface at:
>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>and select "Join or leave the list"
>>
>>Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web =
>interface at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>and select "Join or leave the list"
>
>Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>and select "Join or leave the list"
>
>Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
