Essential Readings in EFL methodology for non-newbies

dduck · Post by **dduck** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 12:26 pm

szwagier wrote:It seems to me that if we want to understand what language is, we have to have a coherent theory of where it comes from, and it rapidly became clear to me that Pinker's account of where language comes from evolutionarily is full of holes - on account of his being generally Chomskyan in his approach. Terrence Deacon's The Symbolic Species, while not being an easy read (there is quite a lot of neurobiology which I wouldn't claim to understand) gives, for me, a much more sensible account of the origin of language and, therefore, what it is.

I'd be interested to hear, Szwagier, why you think Chomsky is wrong. I've read complaints from evolutionary linguists (they use computer analysis) claiming that there are other simpler theories that can explain the origins of language. And I have ideas of my own.

Perhaps, we could start a new thread?
Iain

szwagier · Post by **szwagier** » Mon Dec 01, 2003 5:20 pm

dduck wrote: I'd be interested to hear, Szwagier, why you think Chomsky is wrong. I've read complaints from evolutionary linguists (they use computer analysis) claiming that there are other simpler theories that can explain the origins of language. And I have ideas of my own.

Perhaps, we could start a new thread?
Iain

Absolutely! But I need a couple of days to marshal my thoughts - it's been over a year since I read all this stuff.

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Tue Dec 02, 2003 7:19 am

Szwagier,

Having done some preliminary checking on Terrance Deacon's book (since you whetted my appetite) here is part of a review of The Symbolic Species written by John William Schmidt that I ran across. I've never heard of Schmidt, but I suspect that he is a professor at Arizona State University, since I understand he lives in Mesa, AZ, where that school is located. Anyway, here is what he says:

A specific issue that Deacon touches on is the fact that non-human apes are able to learn the basics of human language simply by being exposed to a social environment where human language is being used. Why do non-human apes learn the basics of language rapidly and then stop developing more sophisticated language behavior just at the developmental stage where human children are taking off with a huge vocabulary and increasingly complex syntax? The best that Deacon's theory can suggest is that humans, unlike chimps, have had 2 million years of language use and subsequent brain evolution in response to selective pressure for larger brain regions that aid in symbolic thought. I agree that it would be astounding if certain brain regions such as the adult human prefrontal cortex is not more useful for human language tasks than is the chimp prefrontal cortex, but is this really the most important thing we need to know about the relationship between brains and language?

Is there another way of looking at the difference between human and chimp brains? One that might better inform us about the functional differences between human and chimp brains that give humans superior language skills? Deacon mentions an alternative in Chapter 6, "...the rate of human brain maturation...is prolonged compared to other primates..." In fact, most human brain growth happens after birth while most chimp brain growth happens before birth. What does this have to do with language behavior?

Perhaps everything. Why DO humans have big brains? Even though Deacon correctly points out the fact that, in the case of brains, bigger does not mean better, his whole theory ends up depending on the idea that by making some brain regions bigger, you get an ape that is better at learning human language. Deacon tries to gloss over this contradiction by assuring us that his theory is really making use of a powerful mechanism for evolving a more language-competent brain, the mechanism of "parcellation", which he claims can mechanistically explain data such as those given in Figure 8.3. Can parcellation really do all the explanatory work that his theory demands or is there a need for additional mechanisms?

Why DO humans have big brains? What if big human brains are just a side effect of some other more important aspect of brain physiology? What if larger human brain size is just a side effect of evolutionary selection for prolonged synaptic plasticity during human childhood? Maybe if we could alter a few genes in bonobos so as to prolong postnatal brain growth in certain bonobo brain regions like the anterior cingulate cortex, just maybe we would give bonobos a longer window for developing sophisticated language skills.

There is a whole tradition within neuroscience that started with behavioral studies of associative learning and led to studies of the cellular and molecular mechanisms of learning and memory. This branch of neuroscience research is almost completely ignored by Deacon. We have to wonder if Deacon's focus on neuroanatomy has provided him with a limited data set which paints his theory of brain/language co-evolution into a corner.

So my advice is that people who are interested in language should read Deacon's book, but recognize the limitations of his perspective. In the next few decades the rest of the story of how brains make human language behavior possible will come rolling in. Deacon has provided us with a working model of how to apply this hard-won knowledge of the brain to our understanding of human language, but Deacon's is just an early pass at this kind of empirically-anchored theoretical neurolingustics. Much more is yet to come. Even scientists should heed Wittgenstein's warning not to be too quick to formulate grand theories of language while so much data remains to be collected.

I take it you would disagree with his analysis, Szwagier. Am I correct?

Larry Latham

szwagier · Post by **szwagier** » Wed Dec 03, 2003 7:43 am

Actually, I don't completely disagree - the whole field of language evolution is, as Schmidt implies, fairly young, and I would think that Deacon himself would be happy with "an early pass", given that early passes are all that is possible at this stage.

I think Schmidt does Deacon a bit of a disservice when he says that the whole theory depends on "bigger brain, better communicator". If he thinks that's bad, he should go read some Chomsky

I don't have time at the moment to give a detailed explanation, and as Iain suggested above, it probably needs its own thread, but the main reason I liked Deacon's book is that he is at least trying to explain the evolution of language as a physical process, which Chomskyans can't do because they have no physical evidence of the "Language Acquisition Device" which their hypothesis claims is essential...

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Fri Dec 05, 2003 7:07 am

I don't have the problem with Chomsky that you do. In fact, I think it was Chomsky who said our ignorance can be divided into two catagories: problems and mysteries. We may not know the answers to problems, but we can at least imagine how to go about finding an answer. With mysteries, we have no idea about how even to start. We can only wonder. He then goes on to suggest that for some of man's mysteries, work is slowly beginning to change them into problems, giving hope of answers someday. Perhaps he was thinking about language acquisition.

I guess I'll have to read Deacon's book, even though I'm a Pinker admirer (and therefore, by default, a devotee of Chomsky as well). It looks, though, like The Symbolic Species should be on my "must read" list. However, it'll have to wait a while, as I have six or seven other books on that list ahead of it (including Pinker's How the Mind Works).

Thanks for the tip, szwagier.

Larry Latham

szwagier · Post by **szwagier** » Fri Dec 05, 2003 11:21 pm

A third version of events can be found in Derek Bickerton's "Language and Species" (1990) (can't remember the publisher). I don't believe it, but in a spirit of fairness I think I ought to mention it!

Hal Jordan · Post by **Hal Jordan** » Sat Dec 06, 2003 5:38 am

THere's a great post here. Hope it helps