tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post7044647378279988838..comments2024-03-28T04:04:55.806-07:00Comments on Faculty of Language: How deep are typological differences?Norberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15701059232144474269noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-41362173525100914272015-12-08T12:23:52.616-08:002015-12-08T12:23:52.616-08:00I’ve been pondering a bit on this post’s conjectur...I’ve been pondering a bit on this post’s conjecture …<br /><br />First of all, I'm highly sympathetic to the train of thought outlined, as well as the idea that parameters might be external to FL. Regarding FL's parameter space: Interestingly, it seems to me that this line of argument, generally speaking, is highly compatible with Cedric Boeckx' idea of parameters as an "emergent property." His suggestion is interesting, because if parameters indeed emerged during acquisition, then there is no need for them to be pre-specified (i.e. part of LAD/FL).<br /><br />In this context, there's an interesting paper by Guillermo Lorenzo and Víctor Longa in the volume <i>Language, from a biological point of view</i> in which they outline how children might acquire the English rule of auxiliary fronting for forming interrogatives solely on the basis of a domain-general learning mechanisms, PLD, and a(n innate? or third-facorized) bias for structure-dependence. Their account emphasises the developmental <i>process</i>, pointing to the importance of the interplay of factors that only in combination can give rise to a particular I-language.<br /><br />If I recall correctly, L&L do not consider parameters as such in any detail, yet it occurs to me that their account still is highly relevant to the question of how we conceptualise LAD/FL: It seems much more (biologically) plausible that over-specification with respect to parameters (e.g., as part of UG) might simply not be necessary, provided that (aspects of) the phenotype actually can arise from the process of development itself. Otherwise put, discernible parameters could be an “epiphenomenon” of development, as they emerge during the acquisition process. (Also, this could be one of the reasons why it has proven difficult to come up with "comprehensive" definitions of what a parameter actually is?)<br /><br />The resulting question then is whether the developmental "biases" brought into the process that give rise to parameters are necessarily part of UG (in its current genocentric definition) ...? If I recall correctly off the top of my head, L&L argue that a lot can be third-factorised. Personally, I suppose that especially more intricate parameters will probably require either domain-specific developmental biases to enter into the process; or, alternatively, domain-general biases might yield domain-specific properties as the result of interaction with other factors during development.<br /><br />Be that as it may, based on what is currently understood, it seems reasonable to regard the developmental process that yields FL as being "canalised" in Waddington's sense, meaning that we get the same outcome (i.e. a functional FL) regardless of (E-language) variation (this relates to Big Fact #2 and #3). The way I see it, taking a developmental approach to the study of FL enables us to conceive language acquisition as such a canalised process that can readily accommodate variation (as L&L mention), thereby maybe yielding discernible parameters as a kind of "by-product." If something like this were true there would be no "need" for parameters to become fixed on the phylogenetic scale, they come "for free" during development anyway.<br /><br />In sum, I believe that considering developmental processes might help to clarify certain things with respect to the "origin" and nature of parameters and their relation to FL, yet, (unfortunately?) simultaneously adds to the complexity of the overall picture.<br /><br />Well, that's just my two cents ...Patrick T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06765977287655192596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-7460745374901608172015-12-08T10:42:35.302-08:002015-12-08T10:42:35.302-08:00That's interesting. I'd expect such an eff...That's interesting. I'd expect such an effect to be crucially dependent on age of acquisition and L2 proficiency, meaning that early bilinguals should exhibit a right-ear advantage for tones whereas late bilinguals don't (it'd also be interesting to see whether this can be overcome by highly-proficient late bilinguals).<br /><br />An addition to the studies on encoding vs. function: If I recall correctly, there's also work by Angela Friederici('s group) on differences in marking grammatical function (subject/object) in English and German (word order vs. case-marking) that found the fundamentally same network to be employed (again, on a macro-level). However, as far as I know, ERP evidence has revealed a certain sensitivity to typological differences within this network.<br /><br />I agree that it'll be interesting to see how far the influence of typological differences actually goes.Patrick T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06765977287655192596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-8873437599643559692015-12-08T07:51:02.166-08:002015-12-08T07:51:02.166-08:00Consistent with that, I've also heard that wit...Consistent with that, I've also heard that with dichotic listening there is a right-ear advantage for tones in L1. I once worked with an undergraduate who was studying L2 tone perception with dichotic listening, and I believe he found no right-ear advantage. Interesting to speculate about what kinds of brain organization change depending on typological properties and which don't!William Matchinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14694924777230753361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-21179021976615488632015-12-08T06:50:55.024-08:002015-12-08T06:50:55.024-08:00This reminded me of studies from around 2000 or so...This reminded me of studies from around 2000 or so (don't recall by whom off the top of my head) looking into whether different languages would employ different brain regions depending on the type of encoding used. If I recall correctly, it was found that even though Thai marks lexical-semantic differences using tone (not necessarily with phonemes—which is typologically more common) it is also processed in the left hemisphere when the tonal difference in stimuli served a lexical-semantic function. This is interesting because the left hemisphere is usually responsible for phonemes and lexical-semantic processing, whereas the right one usually takes care of prosodic information. The conclusion then was that linguistic function determines localisation and activation patterns (on a macro-scale that is), not encoding.Patrick T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06765977287655192596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-8405889164788618742015-12-08T06:44:48.460-08:002015-12-08T06:44:48.460-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Patrick T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06765977287655192596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-23762538296015248262015-12-07T11:23:52.648-08:002015-12-07T11:23:52.648-08:00Interesting. That different languages localize dif...Interesting. That different languages localize differently wrt some properties is not that surprising, after all we know that brains track all sorts of regularities. In fact, tuba players and trombonists probably also localize differently given their different physical playing properties. The question is whether these differences are UG reflecting or not, or if UG says much about the mapping to articulation beyond 'MAP IT!'. That said, I agree that this is an empirical question and it would be nice to know if the course of acquisition were differentiated in any way across languages and speakers depending on antecedent variables like descent.Norberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15701059232144474269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-80523105776462406422015-12-07T11:20:07.085-08:002015-12-07T11:20:07.085-08:00I find the argument compelling, but I think Big Fa...I find the argument compelling, but I think Big Fact #3 is likely incorrect, although it would be an interesting research project.<br /><br />Even if you're right in that typological differences among languages aren't coded in the grammar, I imagine that the externalization systems would regardless have some significantly different organization reflecting these typological differences. This might still result in difficulties trying to externalize two strongly different languages compared to two quite similar languages. E.g., an externalization system designed to handle serial order would organize differently than one designed to handle lots of interesting morphology, posing problems for trying to do both. <br /><br />There appears to be some evidence that different languages do result in different brain organizations, at the very least. A recent <a href="http://www.neurolang.org/?page=poster_detail&show=authors&sort=board_a&go=&session=Saturday,+October+17_10:00+am+%E2%80%93+12:00+pm_French+and+Walton+Rooms&id=334" rel="nofollow">poster</a> I saw at a conference showed differences in anatomical connectivity among language areas depending on the particular language (German, English, and Chinese were studied).William Matchinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14694924777230753361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-42279028430678962322015-12-07T11:14:07.967-08:002015-12-07T11:14:07.967-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.William Matchinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14694924777230753361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-29693594157854098612015-12-07T10:18:08.793-08:002015-12-07T10:18:08.793-08:00Micronesian hasn’t been around all that long, it’s...Micronesian hasn’t been around all that long, it’s just one branch of the Oceanic family. Perhaps you’re thinking of Austronesian, the grandparent of Oceanic?<br /><br />Ural-Altaic has been rejected as an actual family for a few decades now. Altaic isn’t a real thing.James Crippenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10927937760368098278noreply@blogger.com