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/