Episode 30 of the Brain Science Podcast is a discussion of The First Word: The Search for the Origins of Language by Christine Kenneally. We focus mostly on the first part of the book, which tells the story of how the study of language evolution has grown from almost a banned subject to a new field of inquiry called evolutionary linguistics. We also reflect on how recent findings in neuroscience like the importance of plasticity are influencing the field.
Episode Transcript (Download PDF)
Scientists Discussed in the Episode:
- Noam Chomsky
- Sue Savage-Rumbaugh
- Stuart Shanker
- Steven Jay Gould
- Steven Pinker and Paul Bloom
- Philip Leiberman
*References:
Pinker, Steven, and Paul Bloom, “Natural Language and Natural Selection,” Behavioral and Brains Sciences 13 (1990): 707-84.
Marc D. Hauser, Noam Chomsky, and W. Tecumseh Fitch (2002). “The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve?” Science 298:1569-1579.
Christine Kenneally, The First Word: The Search for the Origins of Language (2007).
Stanley I. Greenspan and Stuart G. Shanker, The First Idea: How Symbols, Language, and Intelligence Evolved from our Primate Ancestors to Modern Humans (2004).
*Additional references can be found in Kenneally’s book and at the websites of the scientists listed above. Also, be sure to check out Kenneally’s blog for follow-up information.
Share your comments on the Discussion Forum
Subscribe in a reader or podcatcher
Subscribe to Brain Science Podcast with Dr. Ginger Campbell by Email
{ 5 comments }
Hi Dr. Campbell, I listen to your podcast regularly and find it quite informative.
I was surprised, though, by your caricature of Chomsky’s work in linguistics.
Have you read any of Chomsky’s works in linguistics or the work of any one of the scholars associated with his work or do you base your critiques of his scholarship on second hand critiques by others, such as the book you reviewed or Maggie Boden or something? I ask purely because I think that his work is often caricatured and made into a straw man by many from all across the spectrum. The post-structuralists and cultural subjectivists for his blasphemy of proposing a universality of humankind and a genetic component of the human language faculty, while others take issue with his formalisms, while yet others critique his linguistics because they don’t like his politics. For all the talk of a Chomskyian stranglehold over linguistics, the humanities and social sciences in my years as a interested spectator n the controversies and student in Anthropology and history, I have seen quite the opposite situation.
I, personally, have moved back and forth on my opinions on his proposal of a “language acquisition device” (LAD) or Universal Grammar. First in my late teens and early twenties, I was swept up by the 1980′s so-called post-modernists, who disdained any discussion of universals, and anthropologists who rejected any discussion of all but socialized cultural contingencies. Luckily I continued to be critical of all I read from all approaches and fought my way out of that ideological hole.
The final event that brought me back to the idea that Chomsky was on the right track, in spirit if not the letter, was my work at an artificial intelligence company which took a distinctly hostile approach to the idea of a LAD, and was unabashedly behaviorist. The company approached A.I. from a radical behaviorist perspective; namely, that complex language could emerge from a set of general-purpose algorithms beginning with a “blank slate” program. The aim was to teach the program competency in the use and understanding of language. The software quickly reached a learning barrier, however, and required the incorporation of several context sensitive rules and heuristic devices. My experience working there substantiated my belief that there exist innate domain-specific systems of knowledge.
Chomsky may be a bit flippant about the importance of studying the evolution of language and about the capacities and relatedness of non-human ‘language acquisition’ abilities…but let’s face it, there are some fundamental differences in the way that language is acquired and the ability of an African Grey parrot compared to a human child…and the trainers of Nim Chimpsky were unconsciously leading the witness shall we say.
Have you read the recent lecture given by Noam at the “Symposium on Margaret Boden, Mind as Machine: A History of Cognitive Science,” where he replies to Boden’s sharp critique of Chomsky, I think it answers a lot on this subject: http://chomsky.info/articles/20071011.htm
Rakiah,
Thank you for your detailed critique of this subject.
I look forward to reading the reference you included in your comment.
Dear Dr. Campbell,
I just discovered your podcast and I was able to listen to only a few episodes so far. I am very happy to decide that Brain Science is definitely a podcast to bookmark, next to All In The Mind, Science Friday, and other places to go for intellectual recreation. I think your coverage of language-related topics is accurate, informative, and enjoyable. I especially liked your interview with Art Glenberg: what you prompted him to say about aspects of embodiment in language could serve as a great intro to Cognitive Linguistics.
However, like Rakiah noted above, your portrayal of Chomsky was quite puzzling. After a pretty detailed and interesting historical sketch (a few facts you mention show some thorough background screening), then your critique gets rough and unfair. Chomsky’s ideas may be less of a mantra that they were 40 years ago, but to say that his contribution is not so relevant today is a bit of an exaggeration. A lot of the opposition he’s getting was actually inspired by his work. New trends in linguistics, such as Construction Grammar, which officially counts as alternative to Chomsky, are of generative, Chomskyan origin. They would hardly have been possible, if not for Chomsky’s GT Grammar.
As to the question of plasticity that you mention, it would be great if Chomsky were wrong, but the sad fact is that there are limits to plasticity. One fact that proponents of untethered plasticity do not address very well is that it is not just hard to acquire a foreign language after the onset of puberty, but it is practically impossible. I would be very interested to be shown ONE example of a person who managed to become a native speaker of a foreign language after, say, 30. But I mean, someone who REALLY acquired a language and was indistinguishable from native speakers. As far as I know, when such cases are reported, their authenticity is semi-fictional (like guys who are so good at the language of the enemy that they get recruited by the CIA, but their identity must remain secret of course).
Chomsky may be less fashionable these days, but he’s definitely not a fallen Skinner of our times. Chomsky has not received a knock-out punch from anyone yet, and I personally doubt he will ever be discarded completely. My best guess is that his nativism will be elegantly unified with cognitivism by some big star of the twenty first century, and that will be a higher-level theory that will be even harder to seriously contest.
Konrad,
I appreciate your thoughtful comments. I have attempted to get feedback from other linguists about the issue of Chomsky and it is my impression that younger linguists are less convinced. At any rate I hope you will enjoy the follow-up conversations in Episode 39 (Michael Arbib) and Episode 41 (Alice Gaby), which you can find at the new website at http://brainsciencepodcast.com
On the subject of plasticity, I certainly agree that it has its limits, as any adult trying to learn a foreign language will attest. However, I don’t really see how that relates to rejecting Chomsky’s contention that an universal grammar module is hardwired into the human brain. The limits to plasticity are easily seen in learning other new skills that no one would claim were based on a hard-wired brain module.
Ginger Campbell, MD
Hi Dr. Campbell,
Thank you for your reply.
I definitely will check out all other episodes, not only those language-related!
As to plasticity and Chomsky’s UG, of course there have been opinions to the effect that since the brain is so plastic, then learning new languages should not require any hard-wired mechanisms. But this conclusion is wrong. Chomsky’s claim is that children are so good at learning their mother tongues not because their minds are plastic (plasticity is simply not enough). Children’s secret is that they know which way to proceed, or more specifically, they know which structures are possible, and which ones are unlikely. For example, given what children know about verbs in English, they automatically somehow feel that English does not allow structures such as “*She could has done it” — for foreigners it is not so obvious and such “creative” structures are pretty common. In fact, it is even possible that the reason why such structures befall foreigners is precisely because of rampant plasticity, not constrained by UG principles. At this point, the great question is what happens to LAD/UG in adult life and why it’s not available to adults as readily as it is to kids. Some say the LAD “shuts down”, others that the brain structures become optimized for a given language and are later less useful for other languages. Whatever the answer, I think it is a mistake to try to pretend that children are blank slates when they are first exposed to their mother tongues.
I didn’t mean to dump a long post here, but I’d just like to address your comment on other skills. I think that they too rely on hard-wired mechanisms, maybe not as much as language, maybe in their case, plasticity can be less constrained, but I guess that even mundane skills like walking must use some innate software in order to take off. This may sound absurd because walking is so ubiquitous across the animal kingdom that it’s natural to take it for granted, but I doubt it would be possible to teach someone to walk after a part of the caudate nucleus got damaged or excised.
Konrad
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 7 trackbacks }