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
Robert:
I do not want to assume that you are not familiar with what implies
providing "bibliographical information" in support of a hypothesis.
You are not providing the information requested. Instead, you are
making reference to Pinker's "The Language Instinct." But, as Herb
has corroborated, Sampson has already provided evidence that Pinker's
case is too weak to be considered. You also mention an article which
you have not read. Are we moving into anecdotal? My request stands:
Please provide BIBLIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION, for the Innateness
Hypothesis,as Chomsky and Pinker state it, that is, research evidence
that language is innate, and not, as cognitive linguistics affirms,
part of the human cognitive process.
Eduard
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
>includes research that shows evidence that children "know
>(unconsciously) what a noun [ or other part of speech] is." I
haven't
>found yet such evidence in all the language literature I have read.
>
>***
>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"
attached
>to words that can't be pluralized, we might expect comparative and
>superlative morphology attached to nouns, we might expect scrambled
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
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
ESL
>students. Why is it kids learning English understand how "do" works
for
>questions and adult L2 learners can have very different principles?
If
>language principles are not innate, we should expect some kids to
have
>"wild" grammars with respect to this property of the English
auxiliary
>system.
>
>Of course, there is PUBLISHED evidence that meets Eduard's
challenge.
>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
him?
>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
that
>even though irregular plurals can be used in such compounds but
regular
>plurals can't. And, remember the immediate INPUT.
>
>What do you call a monster that eats RATS? The input in this
question
>would favor *"rats-eater."
>
>I have no idea what the story is if kids don't know what a noun is
and
>the different properties of IRREGULAR and REGULAR nouns.
>
>Perhaps, Eduard will let us know.
>
>Bob Yates, Central Missouri State University
>
>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/
|
