Download
1 / 15
150 likes | 155 Vues
Language, Mind, and Brain by Ewa Dabrowska. Chapter 7: Words. UG again. Q: What is the innateness position on the lexicon?. UG again. Q: What is the innateness position on the lexicon?
E N D
Language, Mind, and Brainby Ewa Dabrowska Chapter 7: Words
UG again • Q: What is the innateness position on the lexicon?
UG again • Q: What is the innateness position on the lexicon? • A: It presumes that the lexicon is not learned, that all the concepts are there and it is just a matter of learning what sounds to associate to what concepts. • Q: What problems are there with this?
UG again • Q: What is the innateness position on the lexicon? • A: It presumes that the lexicon is not learned, that all the concepts are there and it is just a matter of learning what sounds to associate to what concepts. • Q: What problems are there with this? • A: Lots of words can’t be innate, and where are they on the genome…? I would add that the meanings are not the same in all lexicons…
1. The semantics of locative terms • Locative terms such as in, on, behind are not universal, they are subject to conventional construal, polysemy, and cross-linguistic variation.
1.1 Conventional construal • The distinctions between in, on, through and similar spatial terms are language-specific, cf. Cora uh- ‘inside slope’ vs. ah- ‘outside slope’
1.2 Polysemy • The lexicon can’t be infinite, so many words have multiple meanings, and the range of meanings is language-specific, as we see in over.
1.3 Cross-linguistic variation • Languages have lots of different ways of encoding information about spatial relationships (verbs, prepositions, etc.) • Different languages can focus on different parts of a spatial relationship (position of landmark vs. shape of landmark), or use relative vs. absolute systems of location • When linguists postulate “semantic features”, they have an English bias.
2.1 The acquisition of locative terms • What happens when children acquire languages with radically different systems for encoding location? • We shall look at: • Walpiri • Tzotzil • Japanese • Korean
Four languages • Walpiri – no words corresponding to in, on, under, and no evidence that children are even looking for such meanings • Tzotzil – uses an absolute system (E vs. W, based on tilt of land), and children acquire it early and well • Japanese – verbs are acquired earlier than particles, despite the fact that particles are available and correspond to supposed “universals” • Korean – very different system, and children follow the language-specific patterns from the very beginning, there is no evidence of use of pre-linguistic concepts
3. Innate structures? • Are there innate structures? If so, are we dealing with semantic primitives or perceptual primitives?
3.1 Semantic primitives • Q: What’s wrong with this approach?
3.1 Semantic primitives • Q: What’s wrong with this approach? • A: Very few words can really be decomposed into primitives; we don’t know how speakers translate perception into primitives; there is no evidence of psychological reality – I’d add that advocates of semantic primitives can’t agree on a list and their lists seem to grow…
3.2 Perceptual primitives • Just in case you were wondering… here is a “ketch” • Perceptual primitives may indeed be the way to go, but more research is needed…
4. Lexical learning & 5. Conclusion • It seems that the constraints are perceptual, and different languages teach the learner to attend to different things available to perception. • Children must do sophisticated detective work, and must learn to project distinctions that are not given in the input. • This capacity can be applied to grammar too.
