Robert:
Here is another scholar who writes against the Innate Hypothesis:
"Van Valin(1991a) argues that from this point of view [ of
communicative competence] what a child does in learning language is
to CONSTRUCT a grammar, based on its inborn cognitive endowment
(which is not assumed to be to be specific to a language) and
information from experience. Slobin's notion of of a Basic Child
Grammar (1985) is a concrete proposal regarding the kind of learning
principles that could be involved, and Braine (1992) shows how a
conception of clause structure very much like that to be introduced
in chapter 2 could be constructed developmentally by the child" (Van
Valin & LaPolla, 2002, p. 14).
Van Valin also states:
"There is no empirical fact in any human language that absolutely
requires that a theory of syntax posit multiple levels [deep/surface]
of syntactic representation" (Van Valin & LaPolla, 2002, p.20).
******
For a cognitive approach to syntax which dismisses most if not all of
the claims Chomsky makes in T-G and MP concerning language structure,
please read Van Valin and LaPolla's "Syntax," and
Langacker's "Foundations of cognitive grammar," vols. I and II. For a
point-by-point rebuttal of Pinker's "Language Instinct" arguments,
please read Sampson's "The 'Language Instinct' Debate."
I am still waiting for your bibliography.
Eduard
On Sun, 03 Sep 2006, Robert Yates wrote...
>What a cool way of dismissing evidence you don't want to consider!
>
>Did Pinker misrepresent the data on Gordon?
>
>If Gordon's work is correct, does it meet your requirement?
>
>Bob
>
>>>> "Eduard C. Hanganu" <[log in to unmask]> 09/03/06 4:29 PM
>>>
>
>
>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/
>
>
>!DSPAM:2252,44fb50db88571021068238!
>
>
>
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/
|
