A Companion to Chomsky. Группа авторов
relevant to this topic, namely, that is, how radically could experience differ and still support language learning. This is why we considered the deprivation of experience in the blind and isolated deaf.
Chomsky continues to frame and expatiate upon the central questions of language learning and knowledge, and I stand very much in his debt.
7.11 Conclusion
In many ways, I think of my lines of work as (partly inadvertent, partly adventitious) elaborations of several of the approaches to language and mind that Chomsky and [Jerry] Fodor brought into the study of language, thus creating a more general revolution in how cognitive science thinks about the nature of mind. The most general conclusion pertains to how much and how widely knowledge is a function of the structure of mind, and how restricted the influence of experience is. This is why the many studies of acquisition in infants with deprivation of input showed so little effect on the final product.
At the same time, there is much to be said in support of Zellig Harris's perspective, which looks so different on the surface. After all, Harris held, and so did Plato, that the knowledge we had at birth is forgotten. I interpret this to mean that although we are surely endowed with a language capacity, we forget, or never knew, how it is instantiated in English in particular. For the latter, we have to observe and integrate the evidence that is provided in the surface forms of the exposure language.
If I had to summarize the odyssey that this succession of studies chronicles, the two‐line conclusion might be: Language acquisition is obviously impossible, but somehow they do it. Empiricism is innate, but somehow we get over it.
At peril of going on forever here, I do want to say a few more words about how this enterprise unfolded, for it was certainly a product of “groupthink.” Henry Gleitman (ultimately the teacher of all of us collaborators) started a research seminar in which we all continued to talk for almost half a century. After a while, it came to be called “the cheese seminar,” because of the refreshments provided halfway through these long evenings of talk, and then, with the addition of insights and methods from Trueswell's students joining this larger group, “the cheese and trackers seminar” – not only cheese and not only eye‐tracking. It was decades of cross talk and collaboration, continuing to this very day, for a great circle of young scientists, some of whom I've mentioned in sketching the styles of investigation and explanation that emerged from this group. And I'm glad to say that I'm more than proud, that this seminar continues: I am particularly proud to say that in the present incarnation of this kind of research seminar, now led by Trueswell, my very first postdoc and early collaborator, Sharon Armstrong (professor of psychology at LaSalle University), continues to attend and to contribute to the next generation of this half‐century‐long conversation.
Language learning isn't really instantaneous; it happens in real time.
Endnotes
1 1 The preparation of this chapter was supported by a grant to Lila R. Gleitman and John C. Trueswell from the National Institutes of Health (1‐RO1‐HD‐37507).
2 2 “Pro‐drop” refers to the property of allowing omission of the subject noun‐phrase while maintaining grammaticality. Thus in Spanish, one can say “Hablo Espanol,” in effect “speak Spanish” without the subject (“I”, or “Yo” in Spanish) being uttered. Thus the (pro)noun has been dropped in the spoken sentence. English, at, at the other extreme in this regard, require's an overt subject even where the semantics does not require it, e.g. we say “It is raining” even though we have no “it” in mind as the agent or actor of a raining event.
References
1 Brown R, Cazden C, Bellugi U. 1968. The child's grammar from I to III. In Minneapolis Symposium on Child Psychology, vol. 2, ed. JP Hill, pp. 28–73. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press
2 Chomsky N. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
3 Chomsky N. 1959. A review of B.F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior. Language 35:26–58.
4 Chomsky N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5 Chomsky N. 1959. A review of B.F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior. Language 35:26–58 Chomsky N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6 Fisher C, Gleitman H, Gleitman LR. 1991. On the semantic content of subcategorization frames. Cognitive. Psychology. 23:331–92.
7 Gleitman H, Gleitman LR. 1979. Language use and language judgment. In Individual Differences in Language Ability and Language Behavior, ed. C Fillmore, D Kemler, W Wang, pp. 103–26. New York: Academic Press.
8 {Gleitman, LR, Goldin‐Meadow, S, Senghas, A, and Flaherty, M. (2019 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116(24):11705‐11711; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1819872116
9 Gleitman LR, Rozin P. 1977. The structure and acquisition of reading: relations between orthographies and the structure of language. In Toward a Psychology of Reading, ed. A Reber, D Scarborough, pp. 55–141. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10 Harris ZS. 1951. Methods in Structural Linguistics. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press.
11 Harris ZS. 1952. Discourse analysis. Language 28:1–30.
12 Hirsh‐Pasek K, Gleitman LR, Gleitman H. 1978. What did the brain say to the mind? A study of the detection and report of ambiguity by young children. In The Child's Conception of Language, ed. A Sinclair, RJ Jarvella, WJM Levelt, pp. 97–132. Berlin: Springer.
13 Hume D. 1738–1740. A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press.
14 Klima ES, Bellugi U. 1979. The Signs of Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
15 Landau B, Gleitman LR. 1985. Language and Experience: Evidence from the Blind Child. Cambridge, MA:Harvard Univ. Press.
16 Locke J. 1690. An Essay Concerning Humane Understanding. London: Thomas Bassett Medina TN, Snedeker J, Trueswell JC, Gleitman LR. 2011. How words can and cannot be learned by observation. PNAS 108:9014–19.
17 {Morgenstern, L., Davis, E. and Ortiz, C. (2016), Planning, Executing, and Evaluating the Winograd Schema Challenge. AI Magazine 37(1):50‐54.}.
18 Newport EL. 1975. Motherese: the speech of mothers to young children. PhD thesis, Univ. Pa., Philadelphia.
19 Newport EL, Gleitman H, Gleitman LR. 1977. Mother, I'd rather do it myself: some effects and non‐effects of maternal speech style. In Talking to Children, ed. CE Snow, CA Ferguson, pp. 109–49. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
20 Pinker S. 1984. Language Learnability and Language Development. Cognitive Science. Ser. 7. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
21 {Pinker, S. (1994/2007). The Language Instinct. New York, NY: Harper Perennial Modern Classics.
22 Rodd LJ, Braine MDS. 1971. Children's imitations of syntactic constructions as a measure of linguistic competence. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 10:430–43.
23 Senghas A, Coppola M, Newport EL, Supalla T. 1997. Argument structure in Nicaraguan Sign Language:the emergence of grammatical devices. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, vol. 2, ed. E Hughes, M Hughes, A Greenhill, pp. 550–61. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.
24 Shipley E, Smith C, Gleitman L. 1969. A study in the acquisition of language: free responses to commands. Language 45:322–42.
25 Smith LB, Yu C, Pereira AF. 2011. Not your mother's view: the dynamics of toddler visual experience. Dev. Sci. 14:9–17.
Конец