Linguistic differences and language design

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$Math 187 Solutions to Homework 2: Part 2 Radunskaya 4. Give an ...$

$Math 31 - Fall, 2007 Lecture 3 When does the integral exist? Last ...$

$Math 60. Rumbos Spring 2009 1 Solutions to Assignment #20 1. Let f$

$Math 152. Rumbos Fall 2009 1 Solutions to Assignment #12 1 ...$

$Math 60. Rumbos Spring 2009 1 Solutions to Assignment #10 1. Let ...$

$Math 31S. Rumbos Fall 2011 1 Solutions Review Problems for ...$

$Math 60. Rumbos Spring 2009 1 Solutions Review Problems for ...$

352Opinion TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.7 No.8 August 2003PolysynthesisnoHead directionality/Optional polysynthesisyesAdjective neutralizeFirst/no First/yes last/yes last/noverbnounSubject sideChichewaSelayareseSlaveQuechuaErgativecaseMohawkWarlpiribeginningendAccusErgVerb attractionyesnoTzotzilMalagasyTopic prominentyesnoGreenlandicDyirbalSubject placement Serial verbs JapaneseChoctawlow highno yesTurkishMalayalamWelshZapotecPro dropEnglishIndonesianEdoKhmernoyesFrenchSpanishRomanianTRENDS in Cognitive SciencesFig. 1. The parameter hierarchy. This is a systematic representation of some major parameters that distinguish languages (shown in violet). Each branch point is labeledwith the name of one or more parameters; below each point are lower-level parameters that depend on them. The Polysynthesis parameter at the top of the hierarchy is theparameter that distinguishes Mohawk from English in Box 2. The Head Directionality parameter one step down is the parameter that distinguishes Japanese from English.At the bottom of the diagram are some historically unrelated languages that are syntactically similar as a result of having the same settings for these parameters.Box 3. Comparing language differences to 16th century cryptographyClaims that a biological system has a particular function are oftenreinforced by comparing it to products of human engineering that havethat function. When the two have detailed structural similarities, theclaim that they have similar functions gains support, a classic examplebeing the comparison between the vertebrate eye and a camera. Theways human languages differ can be compared to cryptographictechniques of the 16th century (see Table I). Sixteenth centurycryptographers used a variety of techniques: they both replaced andrearranged symbols in systematic ways, and they performed thesetransformations both at the level of letters and at the level of words andphrases [26]. This layered complexity evolved over time with the explicitpurpose of defeating particular code-breaking strategies (such asfrequency analysis). Natural languages also differ from one another inways that show layered complexity, using substitution and rearrangementat multiple levels. Many of the specific tricks of early cryptographershave striking analogies in natural language. This givescredence to the notion that natural languages have the same concealingfunction as man-made ciphers.Table I. Similarities between cryptographic methods and natural languagesCryptographic techniqueNatural languageSteganography (hiding the message)Use of phonetic distinctions that are imperceptible to speakers of otherlanguagesLetter for letter substitution ciphersUse of different sound systemsCode expressions that stand for entire words and phrasesSaussurean arbitrariness (use of arbitrary sounds to express a concept)Use of homophones (different code symbols for the same letter) Allophonic variation (different pronunciations with no associatedmeaning difference)Use of nulls (symbols added that do not stand for any letter) Use of functional particles with no truth-conditional meaningRemoval of spaces between wordsPhonological joining of words by rules of ‘external sandhi’Transposition ciphers (systematic scrambling of words and letters) Word order parameters (see Boxes 1 and 2)http://tics.trends.com
Opinion TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.7 No.8 August 2003 353Some researchers dismiss the idea that linguisticdifferences have a function out of hand. But we shouldalso be wary of evolutionary psychological reasoning if itleads us to downplay what is, because of unprovableassumptions about what must have been. The use oflanguage in early human societies is not observable, andyet the reality of linguistic variation of a particular kind is,so we should focus on that. There are, after all, plenty ofunsolved questions about human cognition: intentionality,free will, a priori knowledge, abductive reasoning, and soon [32,33]. Many of these are clearly related to language[2]. We therefore need to remain open to new insights fromoutside the familiar range of assumptions.ConclusionThe extensive differences among human languages can beattributed to a small number of discrete differences in theunderlying rule system, known as parameters. In thisrespect, languages are similar to artificial codes,suggesting that language developed to prevent communicationas well as to permit communication. Furtherresearch is needed to complete the parametric account ofhow languages differ, and to develop theories of the originsof language that explain not only the existence of humanlanguages, but also how they can differ so systematically.In particular, we need to explore alternatives to thesimplistic assumption that language exists only forcommunication.References1 Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris2 Baker, M. (2001) The Atoms of Language, Basic Books3 Kuno, S. (1973) The Structure of the Japanese Language, MIT Press4 Stowell, T. (1981) Origins of Phrase Structure, MIT5 Dryer, M. (1992) The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language68, 81–1386 Greenberg, J. (1963) Universals of Language, MIT Press7 Tomlin, R. (1986) Basic Word Order: Functional Principles,CroomHelm8 Koopman, H. (1984) The Syntax of Verbs, Foris9 Kandybowicz, J. and Baker, M. On directionality and the structure ofthe verb phrase. Syntax (in press)10 Mithun, M. and Chafe, W. (1979) Recapturing the Mohawk language.In Languages and Their Status (Shopen, T., ed.), pp. 3–34, WinthropPress11 Baker, M. (1996) The Polysynthesis Parameter, Oxford UniversityPress12 Mithun, M. (1984) The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60,847–89313 Baker, M. (1988) Incorporation: a Theory of Grammatical FunctionChanging, University of Chicago Press14 Bickerton, D. (1990) Language and Species, University of ChicagoPress15 Bickerton, D. (1995) Language and Human Behavior, University ofWashington Press16 Carstairs-McCarthy, A. (1999) The Origins of Complex Language,Oxford University Press17 Lieberman, P. (1985) The Biology and Evolution of Language, HarvardUniversity Press18 Lieberman, P. (1999) Eve Spoke: Human Language and HumanEvolution, W.W. Norton19 Newmeyer, F. (1991) Functional explanation in linguistics and theorigins of language. Lang. Commun. 11, 3–11420 Jackendoff, R. (1999) Possible stages in the evolution of the languagecapacity. Trends Cogn. Sci. 3, 272–27921 Gallistel, C.R. (1995) Symbolic processes in the brain: the case of insectnavigation. In An Invitation to Cognitive Science (Vol. 3) (Smith, E. andOsherson, D., eds), pp. 1–51, MIT Press22 Aitchison, J. (1996) The Seeds of Speech: Language Origin andEvolution, Cambridge University Press23 Nowak, M. et al. (2001) Evolution of Universal Grammar. Science 291,114 – 11824 Nowak, M. and Komarova, N. (2001) Towards an evolutionary theoryof language. Trends Cogn. Sci. 5, 288–29525 Pinker, S. and Bloom, P. (1990) Natural language and naturalselection. Behav. Brain Sci. 13, 707–78426 Pinker, S. and Bloom, P. (1994) Humans did not evolve from bats.Behav. Brain Sci. 17, 183–18527 Newmeyer, F. (1998) Language Form and Language Function, MITPress28 Singh, S. (1999) The Code Book, Doubleday29 Paul, D. (1973) The Navajo Code Talkers, Dorrance & Company30 Bernstein, A. (1991) American Indians and World War II, University ofOklahoma Press31 Divale, W. (1973) Warfare in Primitive Societies, Clio Press32 McGinn, C. (1993) Problems in Philosophy: The Limits of Inquiry,Blackwell33 Fodor, J. (2000) The Mind Doesn’t Work That Way, MIT PressTICS Book ReviewsWe aim to review the best of the new books in Cognitive Science in TICS.Our book reviews are styled like short opinion pieces or mini-reviews of a subject area, with the aim of providing readers with morein-depth analysis. As well as critically appraising important new texts in the field, the authors of reviews will be encouraged to usethe book as a framework for wider discussion.Publishers: monographs and edited volumes (but not undergraduate textbooks) will be considered for review in Trends in CognitiveSciences. Please send us advance e-mails of forthcoming titles and copies of books you would like to be reviewed to the BookReview Editor at the address below.Trends in Cognitive SciencesElsevier London, 84 Theobald’s Road, London WC1X 8RR, UK.e-mail: tics@current-trends.comhttp://tics.trends.com
Page 1: Opinion TRENDS in Cognitive Science

Linguistic differences and language design

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?