The last chapter of Steven Pinker's "valuable" book; deals with how some of the major social sciences have based their recent theories on what Pinker has introduced as the brain's ability to produce language through an innate "mind design".
Margaret Mead, anthropologist and John Watson, psychologist are the two founders of the "Standard Social Science Model" (SSSM) which asserts that the human nature is changeable to different personalities through social upbringing. Pinker in fact sets forth a more coherent version of such model suggesting that at the beginning heredity builds an "innate psychological mechanisms" such as "learning mechanisms". Meanwhile the "environment" provides input for this hereditary innate system. The interface between the environment and these innate mechanisms results in the human behavior. It also helps humans develop skills and values and access the knowledge.
A recent alternative to SSSM is the "Integrated Causal Model" in which some psychologists or anthropologists embark on the evolution theory to form their own science-related hypothesis. For example, Tooby and Cosmides pioneered the "psychological foundations of culture". This "evolutionary psychology" announces the emergence of brain as a result of evolution. The brain in turn produces the psychological processes such as knowing and learning. These two developments in the human psyche lead to the acquisition of "values and knowledge" which make up a person's culture.
Computational linguists like Ray Jackendoff have used this substitute model to enhance this part of the language science.
Pinker believes that the "evolutional psychology" takes its lessons from human language. The psychology that is based on the evolution considers the existence of mental softwares for reasoning and perception and supposes that some "innate mechanism" involves that makes the learning happen when it works at cross-purposes through different modules each with provisions to learn in its own way. Like the languages, these mental mechanisms in turn have evolved from the "natural selection"; but not all aspects of mind are adaptations. The mind's adaptations are not necessarily beneficial in the evolutionary novel environments like the twenthieth-century cities.
Just like how the languages have spread among humans through the years; particular kinds of learning have contagiously spread in a community and the minds of people have become coordinated into shared patterns to form a certain culture.
Meta Culture is a Universal Pattern shared by all human beings. An example of an innate module is "folk biology" in which humans are believed to be born with basic intuitions about plants and animals. According to this module, stone-age people were both botanists and zoologists who had special instincts about living things that began early in life.
The question is how the difference in the biochemistry of people helps the natural selection and consequently the evolution?
Showing posts with label The language instinct. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The language instinct. Show all posts
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Monday, January 19, 2009
The Language Evolution
The next chapter of Language Instinct is about how the language evolved. It sets forth questions answered in detail, through this part of the book. Pinker believes that language evolved gradually in what he calls "a sequence of intermediate forms" which were useful for its possessor's survival.
Who the first "grammar mutants" interacted with, What an intermediate form of language looks like, and how these intermediate language's evolution provided the survival means for the human being; are the three questions asked and answered by Pinker.
There are two possibilities for the answer to the first question:
1) The first men could have used their language instinct to communicate with the family members who inherited the same gene and instinct.
2) They could have talked with their neighbors who despite the lack of the "new fangled circuitry" understood them using the "overall intelligence". An example of the use of the mental ability and background knowledge to appreciate a language is when native speakers of English intuitively grasp the gist of the news on an Italian newspaper with the additional mercy of common words in both the languages.
The effort these neighbors took to decode the language of their cohabitants led to such ability being wired in their brains by the "natural selection".
The answer to the second question-the possible structure of an intermediate grammar-would be some kind of "grammar with intermediate complexity" in which for example"symbols would have a narrower range, rules would be less reliably applied or modules would have fewer rules". This language would look something like the"protolanguage of the chimps signing, pidgings, child language in the two-word stage, the language of immigrants and the unsuccessful partial language of Genie and other wolf-children learned after puberty".
Here, I came up with a question myself: If the intermediate language looks like the language of the immigrants and if the language evolves; does this mean that the spread of immigrants in a country and the use of their language is going to change or deteriorate the use of the native language of the country in which they live now? Or on another level is it possible that the desperate need to learn a second language for survival after the puberty change the "critical period" by "natural selection"? Later Pinker hints that living in the modern times and having everything needed for survival at hand, the humans have ceased to evolve by natural selection.
The author has found the way out of the third question by providing us with four reasons why the evolution of the human language is not as absurd as one might think:
1) We need to know that the small advantages will do for the natural selection to take place. For example a natural selection rule in a mouse that changes its size by one percent each generation will result in a mouse the size of an elephant by a few thousand generations. The author apparently fails to explain clearly how this works in the language evolution. Though, one might guess that a coined word or a change in a word order at a time would lead to what we see as language today.
2) Using the language to trade hard-won knowledge (biology, crafts, tools, ecology, animal and plants' behavior with kin and friends makes a big difference in conveying the "exact message" through more complex grammar. This conveyance of knowledge of the environment, tools, animals and so on serves as a fitness enhancer and therefor leads to better survival of the human race.
3) Using the language for "cooperative efforts for survival" like forming alliances and exchanging information and commitments could have led to its evolution. In Pinker words:"A cognitive arms race could propel a linguistic one." In other more clear words he explains: " There could easily have been a selection for any edge in the ability to frame an offer so that it appears to present maximal benefit and minimal cost to the negotiating partner and in the ability to see through such endeavors and to formulate attractive counter proposals."
4) According to the anthropologists the tribal chiefs were both "gifted orators" and "highly polygynous". They would have easily and effectively woven the language into the politics, economics, tech, family, sex and friendship which were the key roles in the "individual reproductive success.
Who the first "grammar mutants" interacted with, What an intermediate form of language looks like, and how these intermediate language's evolution provided the survival means for the human being; are the three questions asked and answered by Pinker.
There are two possibilities for the answer to the first question:
1) The first men could have used their language instinct to communicate with the family members who inherited the same gene and instinct.
2) They could have talked with their neighbors who despite the lack of the "new fangled circuitry" understood them using the "overall intelligence". An example of the use of the mental ability and background knowledge to appreciate a language is when native speakers of English intuitively grasp the gist of the news on an Italian newspaper with the additional mercy of common words in both the languages.
The effort these neighbors took to decode the language of their cohabitants led to such ability being wired in their brains by the "natural selection".
The answer to the second question-the possible structure of an intermediate grammar-would be some kind of "grammar with intermediate complexity" in which for example"symbols would have a narrower range, rules would be less reliably applied or modules would have fewer rules". This language would look something like the"protolanguage of the chimps signing, pidgings, child language in the two-word stage, the language of immigrants and the unsuccessful partial language of Genie and other wolf-children learned after puberty".
Here, I came up with a question myself: If the intermediate language looks like the language of the immigrants and if the language evolves; does this mean that the spread of immigrants in a country and the use of their language is going to change or deteriorate the use of the native language of the country in which they live now? Or on another level is it possible that the desperate need to learn a second language for survival after the puberty change the "critical period" by "natural selection"? Later Pinker hints that living in the modern times and having everything needed for survival at hand, the humans have ceased to evolve by natural selection.
The author has found the way out of the third question by providing us with four reasons why the evolution of the human language is not as absurd as one might think:
1) We need to know that the small advantages will do for the natural selection to take place. For example a natural selection rule in a mouse that changes its size by one percent each generation will result in a mouse the size of an elephant by a few thousand generations. The author apparently fails to explain clearly how this works in the language evolution. Though, one might guess that a coined word or a change in a word order at a time would lead to what we see as language today.
2) Using the language to trade hard-won knowledge (biology, crafts, tools, ecology, animal and plants' behavior with kin and friends makes a big difference in conveying the "exact message" through more complex grammar. This conveyance of knowledge of the environment, tools, animals and so on serves as a fitness enhancer and therefor leads to better survival of the human race.
3) Using the language for "cooperative efforts for survival" like forming alliances and exchanging information and commitments could have led to its evolution. In Pinker words:"A cognitive arms race could propel a linguistic one." In other more clear words he explains: " There could easily have been a selection for any edge in the ability to frame an offer so that it appears to present maximal benefit and minimal cost to the negotiating partner and in the ability to see through such endeavors and to formulate attractive counter proposals."
4) According to the anthropologists the tribal chiefs were both "gifted orators" and "highly polygynous". They would have easily and effectively woven the language into the politics, economics, tech, family, sex and friendship which were the key roles in the "individual reproductive success.
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Babies language and Grammar gene
At the beginning of the language instinct's chapter 9, one gets flabbergasted at the possibility of babies starting to talk right out of their mommies' wombs. But somehow the author leaves the matter unsolved after mentioning two or three such incidents reported in some magazines. He simply dismisses the possibility for some scientific reasons that are tied to how languages are learned by children. Through the rest of the chapter we are introduced to a clear sketch of different stages a child go through in his mission to develop what is already embedded in him as language instinct. Our assumptions about the true effects of motherese on helping the child fix his incorrect grammar are adjusted when the author puts forward the idea that motherese is useful insofar as it provides a two way collaboration in using the language helping the child develop his own language system. The child does this through a process of trial and error building up the language trees in his mind starting from simple branches. For this he needs to reach into his innate repertoire of grammar and use the most general forms in all languages. He would notice them by hearing his parents' speech. So correcting a child's language would show no effect unless the child realizes the underlying grammar through the aforementioned process.
When the assumption of the child language development processes is done with, the author turns our attention to an interesting evolutionary question:"Why is that the ability to learn the language fades away as one matures. The answer has to do with how the evolution theory works. The evolution premise chooses which benefits should stay with humans at what costs. For example the old age is the cost we pay for the benefit of youth. Likewise the ability to learn a language in an early age is the benefit we get (so we enjoy having the language for a longer time during our life span) at the cost of not being to speak a second language fluently at a later age.
In chapter 10, we get to learn which parts of the brain are involved in storing and producing the language so far as the science can say. It is interesting to know that all the tiniest parts of the language from the words, phonemes, sounds and so on each with their subgroups have different locations allocated to them in different parts of the brain. These locations that vary in different individuals are interconnected through a very organized network of neurons and synopses which act as paths for transferring language data. These paths get strengthened in the child's brain each time they are correctly used to convey a message through language. The language instinct containing the general language grammar guides the correct use of the language and therefore forms the correct paths. So contrary to the wrong assumption mentioned in the beginning of the chapter, there is no grammar gene making all that to happen, but a network of neurons and synopses reinforced through the use of correct grammar made possible by the language instinct.
This hypothetical sophisticated circuitry and its highly organized utility explained by Pinker has hugely contributed to my quest on how languages are learned. Although it might not be true for second language learning, at least it gives me some understanding as how the brain might also work in the case of SLL. So if before I suspected that the memory does all the job, now I have a wider perspective thanks to Pinker.
As far as genes are concerned, we know with a high probability that some genes interfere with the language "circuitry" and its function in brain and produce Specific Language Impairments (SLI). The linguists say so, because they find no environmental evidence to affect the patients with SLI.
Having read these two chapters I have found myself curious to know more about the effect of evolution on language learning ability. As well I would like to follow more closely any scientific advances made on the neorolinguistics.
When the assumption of the child language development processes is done with, the author turns our attention to an interesting evolutionary question:"Why is that the ability to learn the language fades away as one matures. The answer has to do with how the evolution theory works. The evolution premise chooses which benefits should stay with humans at what costs. For example the old age is the cost we pay for the benefit of youth. Likewise the ability to learn a language in an early age is the benefit we get (so we enjoy having the language for a longer time during our life span) at the cost of not being to speak a second language fluently at a later age.
In chapter 10, we get to learn which parts of the brain are involved in storing and producing the language so far as the science can say. It is interesting to know that all the tiniest parts of the language from the words, phonemes, sounds and so on each with their subgroups have different locations allocated to them in different parts of the brain. These locations that vary in different individuals are interconnected through a very organized network of neurons and synopses which act as paths for transferring language data. These paths get strengthened in the child's brain each time they are correctly used to convey a message through language. The language instinct containing the general language grammar guides the correct use of the language and therefore forms the correct paths. So contrary to the wrong assumption mentioned in the beginning of the chapter, there is no grammar gene making all that to happen, but a network of neurons and synopses reinforced through the use of correct grammar made possible by the language instinct.
This hypothetical sophisticated circuitry and its highly organized utility explained by Pinker has hugely contributed to my quest on how languages are learned. Although it might not be true for second language learning, at least it gives me some understanding as how the brain might also work in the case of SLL. So if before I suspected that the memory does all the job, now I have a wider perspective thanks to Pinker.
As far as genes are concerned, we know with a high probability that some genes interfere with the language "circuitry" and its function in brain and produce Specific Language Impairments (SLI). The linguists say so, because they find no environmental evidence to affect the patients with SLI.
Having read these two chapters I have found myself curious to know more about the effect of evolution on language learning ability. As well I would like to follow more closely any scientific advances made on the neorolinguistics.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
The three phenomena in effect
The author in Chapter 8 (The Tower of Babel) goes on, in three consecutive parts to elaborate on the three major factors (learning, innovation and migration) responsible for the variations of the language throughout the world despite the conviction that there is one innate language all the others drive from. Somehow the author manages to explain the third phenomenon in more irrelevant or unnecessary details than is either fathomable or memorable by the average mind. In my opinion he fails to present more scientific facts to support or elucidate the two others which deserve more attention. Or simply they are more fascinating phenomena than the third one in my mind's eye. I might try to find other sources either from the back of the book or the internet to follow up on them.
The learning trend declares that only some parts of a certain grammar would become innate through the human evolution and the rest remain to be learned by the children born into those languages through interactions with the community and it is even learned within a community itself when some inventions or use of a natural thingamabob requires them to invent a word as well. Another reason for not having the whole codes of language innately placed in our brains is that the language by nature is a sharing code event within people. It according to the author is useless to be possessed by only one person and it will soon "fall out of register with everyone else's". "It would be like a Tango for one", Pinker says.
Anyhow, it still somehow falls short of my clearest comprehension. I need to read more on this one.
The innovation experience is even more intriguing and although more explained than the first one, some details of it still evades my understanding. Perhaps I need to read it or explore it more , too.
To put it simply this event initially happens when some language speaker "starts to speak differently" and then it spreads like a contagious incident. The change in speech can happen for a variety of reasons: a word coined, a borrowed term, a stretch in meaning, new jargon or styles that seemed too cool to let go of and gradually penetrated the "mainstream". Language innovation also happens for a more fascinating reason as the author professes: it can occur when a person's brain "reanalyzes" part of a language he mishears or is vague or incomplete. In doing so, he produces something quite new. This trend can be established in different linguistic context: syntactic, phonological, morphological and so on. (P.243-246)
The third phenomenon relates to the history of languages' origin which is not fully solved or explored and has resulted in controversial theories. It also contains the issue of language families which in turn are not fully discovered. This third factor or the way it was explored by the author did not quite charm me. It was either the long display of unfamiliar linguistic terms or the undeveloped and contentious research on the families of the language and their origin that made me lose interest. However, the alarming notion of some languages' extinction due to our modern ways of life, migration and extinction of some ancient cultures is what to which Pinker succeeds to draw the attention.
What if only one language remains at the end?
Should we intervene in the process of language extinction?
What if the natives of such languages don't want the intervention?
What happens to all that literature and language produced?
There is some hope, Pinker confesses: We could still record it. We could produce instructional material in those languages. This seems inadequate to me, as the author himself in a preceding paragraph declares that only children born to those languages can save them from elimination. With the facts above, we can say that children probably can save the oral part of the language more thoroughly.
The learning trend declares that only some parts of a certain grammar would become innate through the human evolution and the rest remain to be learned by the children born into those languages through interactions with the community and it is even learned within a community itself when some inventions or use of a natural thingamabob requires them to invent a word as well. Another reason for not having the whole codes of language innately placed in our brains is that the language by nature is a sharing code event within people. It according to the author is useless to be possessed by only one person and it will soon "fall out of register with everyone else's". "It would be like a Tango for one", Pinker says.
Anyhow, it still somehow falls short of my clearest comprehension. I need to read more on this one.
The innovation experience is even more intriguing and although more explained than the first one, some details of it still evades my understanding. Perhaps I need to read it or explore it more , too.
To put it simply this event initially happens when some language speaker "starts to speak differently" and then it spreads like a contagious incident. The change in speech can happen for a variety of reasons: a word coined, a borrowed term, a stretch in meaning, new jargon or styles that seemed too cool to let go of and gradually penetrated the "mainstream". Language innovation also happens for a more fascinating reason as the author professes: it can occur when a person's brain "reanalyzes" part of a language he mishears or is vague or incomplete. In doing so, he produces something quite new. This trend can be established in different linguistic context: syntactic, phonological, morphological and so on. (P.243-246)
The third phenomenon relates to the history of languages' origin which is not fully solved or explored and has resulted in controversial theories. It also contains the issue of language families which in turn are not fully discovered. This third factor or the way it was explored by the author did not quite charm me. It was either the long display of unfamiliar linguistic terms or the undeveloped and contentious research on the families of the language and their origin that made me lose interest. However, the alarming notion of some languages' extinction due to our modern ways of life, migration and extinction of some ancient cultures is what to which Pinker succeeds to draw the attention.
What if only one language remains at the end?
Should we intervene in the process of language extinction?
What if the natives of such languages don't want the intervention?
What happens to all that literature and language produced?
There is some hope, Pinker confesses: We could still record it. We could produce instructional material in those languages. This seems inadequate to me, as the author himself in a preceding paragraph declares that only children born to those languages can save them from elimination. With the facts above, we can say that children probably can save the oral part of the language more thoroughly.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Languages and Mammals!
The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language by Steven PinkerI can't help but wowing each time I read this book. The range, the depth, the exactness, the details and finally the clarity with which the author describes the languages just goes beyond imagination. Or maybe what fascinates me is the real dimensions of this phenomenon called "language" which unfolds itself by each explanation, comparison or intuition.
In the chapter called: "The Tower of Babel" (p.238-239), he most admirably and point to pointedly compares the diversity of languages to the diversity of mammals as a sub-specie descendants of animals. There is one and only one universal language from which all the other languages of the world come from. The grammar of this universal language is innately curved into our brains and is what we call the language instinct. Just as the mammals have a number of unchangeable shared characteristics among them, so do the languages.They all have subjects, verbs, objects; they all possess derivatives (to form new words) and inflections (to fit a word into its role in a sentence); they all deal with flexible and non-flexible word positions in a sentence and so on and so forth.
Through the centuries as the humans evolve (Darwinism), so do the languages of the world, getting its stamina or substance from three phenomena:innovation, learning and immigration. People of different cultures most strongly identify themselves with the language they speak. They evolve and they make the language evolve accordingly.
WOw...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
