User:Ninackjeong/sandbox

Biolinguistics (level C article)

From "The Biological Nature of Human Language" by Di Sciullo et al. (2009)

<5 foundational questions>

(1) what are the properties of the language phenotype?

(2) How does language ability grow and mature in individuals?

(3) How is language put to use?

(4) How is language implemented in the brain?

(5) What evolutionary processes led to the emergence of language?




 * initially grew out of a collaboration between biologists and linguists in the late 1950s and early 1960s, initially Eric Lenneberg and Noam Chomsky, and later Salvador Luria among others.


 * At 1974 international meeting at MIT, Piattelli-Palmarini coined "Biolinguistics."


 * 1) "Minimalist Program" (Chomsky 1995): provides a methodology to explain linguistic phenomena with minimal theoretical apparatus, attempting to make contact with biology, physics, psychology, and computational neuroscience (e.g., Belletti & Rizzi 2002, Boeckx & Piattelli-Palmarini 2005)
 * 2) Knowledge of language can be studied at an abstract, top level, by positing a "faculty of language" that includes a generative grammar with various properties, including recursion, structure-dependence, symmetrical and asymmetrical properties, and the like.
 * 3) Knowledge of language can also be studied at the neural level, using tools of brain are mapping, imaging, probes, and so forth.

--> we do not expect to be able to predict properties of neural organization from properties of grammar.

--> the Biolinguistic Program can study the development of language at an abstract level, positing a UG to account for both universal properties and language variation (e.g., not just by UG, but others such as the probabilistic model by Yang (2002), the developmental trajectories of actual children (Wexler 2003), critical periods abstractly (Stromswold 2005), FOXP2)

--> the program factoring 'faculty of language' into 3 components related to biology: 1) language's genetic endowment (UG), 2) environmental experience, and 3) bio-physical principles that are language-independent.


 * 4 sections that showcase discoveries that are constant with the minimalist proposals and that contribute to our understanding of the biological basis of language.


 * 1) the acquisition of formal grammars by monkeys and other non-human species
 * 2) in the area of language acquisition & child language disorders: tense & finiteness.
 * 3) FOXP2
 * 4) naming, dextrality/sinitrality (handedness)




 * 1) Sensory-Motor system (SM):
 * 2) Conceptual-Intentional system (CI): interpretation, reasoning, and inference - finite computational power but still produce an. nfinity of. ossible sound-meaning pairs
 * 3) Narrow syntax (NS)

From Why only us by Chomsky & Berwick (2016?)

< Ch 1 >

p1. a language is a finite computational system yielding an infinity of expressions, each of which has a definite interpretation in semantic-pragmatic and sensorimotor systems (informally, thought and sound)

p2. certain key biological components associated with language, in particular the "input-output" system of vocal learning and production that constitutes part of the system we will call "externalization," have been clarified biologically and genetically, so much so that we can effectively use a "divide-and-conquer" strategy and place this sensorimotor aspect of externalization aside while we focus on language's more central properties.

p2. a key component of human language - the basic engine the divides language syntax - is far simpler than most should have thought just a few decades ago.

p3. "Darwin's problem," or "Wallace's problem"

Darwinian thinking: gradual descent from an ancestor via a sequence of slight modifications

<-> biological leap since no other animal has language, which violates Naturalizations non facet Salute (Nature makes no leap)

Darwin's Caruso theory ====> Better vocal competence went hand in hand with a general increase in brain size that led, in turn, to language - language used for internal mental thought:

language - "internal mental tool" by Harry Jerison (1973, 55)

p.5 Lenneberg (1964) "Language in the Light of Evolution and Genetics"

FOXP2: language has a genetic component but "there is no need to assume 'genes for language" (Lenneberg 1967, 265)

Hi Nina! I really like the fact that you included the section from "The Biological Nature of Human Language", I think the questions that are outlined here give a better idea of some of the core and detailed questions of the article that are better than those already there. I think I ought to do something similar, especially if my aims are to improve the historical aspects of my article.

From what I've seen I kind of think the article portion that you're looking at changing might have some oddities in both ordering and wording that I don't know if you exactly outlined within your plans for editing. The first kind of strange thing I saw was the sentence "Many linguists have differing opinions when it comes to the history of Biolinguistics". I found this sentence very confusing and kind of vague, if we're talking about the coined term that was made by Piattelli-Palmarini, that seems set in stone, but the pedagogical practices that have predated that terminology is more up for debate, so maybe this just needs to be rephrased?

The issue I saw with ordering that might be here (and it's kind of an issue of transitions too I think as you talked about) is that not only do we radically switch from Darwinism to Generative grammar, but that the section on Generative Grammar seems sort of ill-defined, and then launches right into the Minimalist Program. So it seems like that creates a real gap in time that the reader might not even be aware of.

I hope this is helpful! Well wishes! AVCharles1138 (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cheonkam

I think you're taking a good direction with this article, tackling some of the inconsistencies and trying to look at the questions that Biolinguistics tries to ask. These are really not super clear in the article right now, and I feel you could walk away after reading the article and still have no idea what biolinguists are actually trying to find out. I suggest you also meet with Massimo (and possibly Chomsky) about what they think Biolinguistics is and about possible references they can refer you to! Apart from that I have some small suggestions here:


 * "As linguistics was believed to be a form of historical science, speculations of the origin of language was not permitted." -> I don't think this is quite true, it's more the case that that question was not within the scope of the field, not that speculation was forbidden.


 * A great reference for you is "The Galilean Challenge", by Chomsky, that's where you might find something close to: "Chomsky believes that the history of biolinguistics was simply the history of transformational grammar."
 * The statement that FOXP2 is not the gene responsible for language has no citation, you might find one in Chomsky & Berwick (2016) ''Why only us".
 * Footnote 5 cites the "Web Journal of Formal, Computational and Cognitive Linguistics", this journal is defunct, I think. I cannot find a working version of it anywhere.
 * Section 2.2 has the following sentence: "The theory suggests that all human languages are subject to universal principles or parameters that allow for different choices (values) but contends that humans possess a generative grammar that makes the rapid and universal acquisition of speech by young children possible and it is somehow magically hard-wired into the human brain." The last part does not seem very objective to me, I would rewrite "somehow magically hard-wired into the human brain" to "in some way hard-wired into the human brain"
 * If you need more references maybe it would be a good idea to talk to Massimo? Since we have him here.
 * In the section on "people in biolinguistics", Andrew Carnie is there, but Massimo is not. This is odd, I'm not sure if Andrew would call himself a bio-linguist, but Massimo certainly would.

Best,

Remo RemoLing (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Consider how readings from Weeks 4, 5, 8, and/or 9 might be used. Cecilemckee (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC) < A summary of the reviews for me >


 * different views on biolinguistics?
 * balancing the content (generative grammar part)
 * biolinguistics is just about transformational grammar ?
 * adding citations missed
 * neutral statements
 * adding stuff with regard to cognitive science, modularity of mind, and Tomasello (2005)

< Responding to reviews & what I did on 10/16 and 10/31>

I really appreciate all the reviews, which are super-helpful :)


 * 1) [Remo's suggestion on citations]: Checking citations - FOXP2,  Footnote 5 (-> Footnote 7 now, added a link for it), Adding Massimo to "people in biolinguistics," and deleting Andrew Carnie from the list ... ==> I checked Andrew Carnie did some work with regard to biolinguistics. So, I am not going to remove him from the list.
 * 2) [Andrew's and Remo's suggestions on some statements]: different views on biolinguistics? speculations of the origin of language?  Section 2.2 sentence (checking tone) ==> It is difficult to find relevant materials.  I will come back on this issue when I complete the other parts. ==> I got the parts of speculations of the origin of language. It seems that at that time the most important thing in linguistics was dealing with some historical aspects of language ("historically documented middle" what Trbant called) because of the Paris Society's ban. ==> tone checked  ==> about different views on biolinguistics? there are several different opinions on the origins and essence (?) of biolinguistics in that section, but since the opening sentence is somewhat misleading, we were stuck in that part.
 * 3) [Professor's suggestion with regard to our course-readings]: i) "mind" issue (also considering evolutionary psychology), ii) usage-based account proposed by Tomasello (2005), in particular, the part about GMZ as a cultural-historical process. ==> I could not add "mind" itself because doing so might be somewhat distractive. Rather, I added main differences between behaviorists' idea on language acquisition and nativists one on it.

< Professor's suggestions > ==> I will come back to this soon.

reorganize the sections

add some subsections / UG part => link to UG link

< Moving stuff from the sandbox to the main space on 10/25 >


 * 1) I revised some parts of the leading paragraph. I added the main difference between behaviorism and nativism on language acquisition.
 * 2) I added Massimo's picture to the article.
 * 3) I added some people to "People in biolinguistics" and alphabetically ordered the part.

< What's next >


 * 1) Regarding the leading paragraph, I think I need to make a connection to the faculty of language.
 * 2) I will try to update the body paragraphs as well...
 * 3) I will add Chomsky's picture too in an adequate place.
 * 4) I will improve the organization... If I can't do this, I will leave some suggestions on this in the talk page.