Bryn Mawr
CollegeCenter for Science In SocietyTo facilitate the broad conversations,
involving both scientists and non-scientists, which are
essential to continuing explorations of |
|
Participants:
Doug Blank (Computer Science), Carol Bernstein (English), Sharon Burgmayer (Chemistry), Anne Dalke (English), Paul Grobstein (Biology), Ruth Guyer (General
Studies, journalist), Eric Raimy (Linguistics), Kathryn Rowe (English), George Weaver (Philosophy), Sharon Burgmayer (Chemistry)
One Summary View (prepared by Eric Raimy; views by other participants encouraged and can be sent either by email or posted using our working group forum area):
This week's discussion began with Paul clarifying and restating his
question/objection to the 'Pinker-style' analysis of language.
This objection is that this approach to language assumes that there
is a stable base that underlies the patterns that linguists observe
and base their theories/analysis of language on and Paul questions
(actually wants to deny) that there is a stable underpinning for
language behavior. A reflex of Paul's objection is that the
claim that language is 'rule based behavior' is fundamentally
incorrect and leads us to the wrong conclusions about the nature of
language.
The alternative to 'Pinker-style' language analysis that Paul
suggests could be useful (from an idea originally posed by Anne) is
that language is play. This approach would deny that there is
any stable underpinning for language other than a 'desire' to play
with the possibilities (or possibly explore if we use a term Paul has
used previously) that could be language. Part of the allure of
this position to Paul is that it incorporates as a fundamental aspect
of our view of language randomness and non-stability. Adopting
this view would radically change how language is studied because it
would create a different set of questions to be asked about language
from the set of questions being asked by the 'Pinker-style' research
program on language.
Eric was very concerned with the implications and claims made about
language that result from the 'play theory' of language. The
first question that Eric had (which was also shared by Ruth) was
about the claim that there was no stable underpinning of language
behavior. Eric prodded Paul about how he could be sure of this
or what kind of evidence that he had to support this position.
In the end, it was concluded that in order to determine whether there
was a 'stable underpinning' for language or not we would have to have
basically an entire explanatory theory of language. Once this
goal was achieved, we could then see whether stability was a
fundamental characteristic of language or not. We are obviously
no where near this type of understanding of language and language
behavior and consequently have to leave the issue of the 'stability
of the underpinnings of language' as an assumption. It should
be recognized that at the present time though, because of lack of
evidence, both the assumption that language has a stable underpinning
and the contrary assumption that there is no stable underpinning are
equally viable as beginning points for the study of language.
The conversation continued with Eric still questioning the usefulness
of the 'play theory of language'. Eric did concede that the
idea of play would be useful in the area of language acquisition
since according to the 'pinker style' analysis of language,
acquisition is viewed as the maneuvering through possible grammars
until the target grammar of the ambient language is reached.
This view appears (to me at least) to be very much how Paul wants to
view language. Acquisition of language does appear to be an
exploratory process where the learner 'plays' with different possible
grammars until the target grammar (or a grammar that is close enough
to the ambient language) is reached. Even though the use of
'play' can be seen rather easily here, Eric still had concerns with
the position that Paul was espousing.
Eric's primary concern with the 'play theory' that Paul was trying to
flesh out was where the primitives of language come from. For
'Pinker style' theories, the primitives of language are supplied by
universal grammar and the exploration process or 'playing' that
occurs in language acquisition is limited by what the primitives
are. In other words, the primitives provided by universal
grammar delimit a 'possible grammar space' that limits what kinds of
grammars that a learner can even conceive of. Within this type
of theory, it is probably correct to view the learner as exploring
this grammar space while they are acquiring a language because there
is in general uniformity in the end result of acquisition (a child
surrounded by English as the ambient language ends up learning
English) but there is not necessarily uniformity in the acquisition
process (different children start talking at different ages, some
babble and some don't, some children [this is rare] don't babble or
speak in single words and one day just start talking in complete
sentences, etc.). For Eric though, the role that universal
grammar plays in providing the primitives of language is
crucial.
Paul would like to allow the 'play' process to derive the primitives
of language in addition to explaining the overall structure of
language too. There is more than this for the 'play theory'
though in that it appears that Paul wants to question whether there
are primitives of language, whether there is a stable structure of a
language and other fundamental assumptions of 'Pinker style' analysis
of language. In support of these questions, we can consider
previous discussions of the language group. We have already
discussed the fact that everyone's language is different in that no
two people speak in exactly the same way. We each have
different accents, different styles of speaking and can argue over
exactly what a particular word means (and in some cases whether the
word exists or not!). These facts are the root of Paul's
questioning of the 'Pinker style' language analysis. When taken
at the surface form, the micro-variation between speakers of the
'same' language does raise the exact question that Paul asks.
Is 'language' really as stable as linguists analyze it to be?.....
At this point, time had run out. Both Paul and Eric apologized
to the group for monopolizing the discussion with questions that they
can be asking between themselves, and which didn't necessarily
represent either the center of concern of the group as a whole or
individual interests of many other participants. It was recognized
that the group focuses better and produces a much more even
discussion when we have a particular reading to discuss. It was
then decided that a selection from George Lakoff's Philosophy in
the Flesh would be chosen as the next reading and distributed to
everyone in the group.