Cartesian Linguistics: from Historical Antecedents to Computational Modeling
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Cartesian Linguistics: From Historical Antecedents to Computational Modeling by Christina Behme Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Dalhousie University Halifax, Nova Scotia June 2011 © Copyright by Christina Behme, 2011 DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY The undersigned hereby certify that they have read and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate Studies for acceptance a thesis entitled “Cartesian Linguistics: From Historical Antecedents to Computational Modeling” by Christina Behme in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Dated: June 07, 2011 External Examiner: _________________________________ Research Supervisor: _________________________________ Examining Committee: _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ Departmental Representative: _________________________________ ii DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY DATE: June 7, 2011 AUTHOR: Christina Behme TITLE: Cartesian Linguistics: From Historical Antecedents to Computational Modeling DEPARTMENT OR SCHOOL: Department of Philosophy DEGREE: PhD CONVOCATION: October YEAR: 2011 Permission is herewith granted to Dalhousie University to circulate and to have copied for non-commercial purposes, at its discretion, the above title upon the request of individuals or institutions. I understand that my thesis will be electronically available to the public. The author reserves other publication rights, and neither the thesis nor extensive extracts from it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author’s written permission. The author attests that permission has been obtained for the use of any copyrighted material appearing in the thesis (other than the brief excerpts requiring only proper acknowledgement in scholarly writing), and that all such use is clearly acknowledged. _______________________________ Signature of Author iii Table of Contents Abstract vi Acknowledgements vii Chapter 1. Introduction 1 Chapter 2. Cartesian Linguistics 30 2.1. Species Specificity of Language 46 2.2. Domain Specificity of Language 53 2.3. Language Acquisition 61 2.4. Cartesian Ideas 69 2.4.1. Innate Ideas 76 2.4.2. Poverty of the Stimulus Arguments 85 2.4.3. Impossibility Arguments 92 2.5. Conclusions 104 Chapter 3. The Evolution of Chomskyan Linguistics 110 3.1. Introduction 110 3.2. Linguistic Nativism/Rationalism 115 3.2.1. Situating Chomsky’s Nativism/Rationalism 115 3.2.2. The Problem of Innateness 118 3.3. Innateness and Linguistic Nativism 128 3.4. Chomskyan Linguistics: A Brief History 134 3.4.1. Chomskyan Linguistics as Natural Science 134 3.4.2. Critique of the Chomskyan Science 142 3.4.3. From Standard Theory to Minimalism 150 3. 5. Chomsky’s Arguments for Innateness of Language 178 3.5.1. The Poverty of Stimulus Argument 180 3.5.2. Chomsky’s LAD 185 3.6. Conclusions 194 Chapter 4. Language Acquisition 198 4.1. Introduction 198 4.2. Arguments for the Innateness of Language 199 4.3. Empirical Evidence Gathered During Language Acquisition 202 iv 4.3.1. Language Acquisition During Infancy 205 4. 3.1.1. Early Beginnings 205 4. 3.1.2. Emerging Language Production in Young Children 209 4. 4. Statistical Information: From Sounds to Syntax 215 4. 4.1. Sound Patterns and Semantics 217 4. 4.2. Statistics and Syntax 219 4.5 The Problem of Negative Evidence 221 4.5.1. The Importance of Negative Evidence for Language Learning 222 4.5.2. Nativism and Negative Evidence 227 4.5.3. Is Negative Evidence Useful for Language Acquisition? 230 4.5.4. Is Negative Evidence Necessary for Language Acquisition? 236 4.6. Conclusions 241 Chapter 5. Computational Modeling of Language Acquisition 243 5.1. Introduction 243 5.2. Connectionist Networks 247 5.3. Case Studies 250 5.3.1. Elman’s Early Connectionist Models 251 5.3.2. Relevance of Connectionist Simulations for the Nativist Debate 254 5.3.3. Other computational Models of Language Acquisition 270 5.3.3.1. Models of Speech Segmentation 271 5.3.3.2. Multiple Cue Integration Models 278 5.3.3.3. Modeling of Complex Aspects of Syntax and Semantics 282 5.3.4. Recursion 291 5.4. Conclusions 300 Chapter 6. Conclusions 305 6.1. The Cartesian Tradition 305 6.2. Chomskyan Progress 317 6.3. Empiricist Language Acquisition Research 323 6.4. Computational Modeling of Language Acquisition 331 6.5. Model Selection and Limitations of Simulation 337 Bibliography 352 v Abstract Chomsky’s Cartesian Linguistics frames into his linguistic work and the resulting debates between rationalists and empiricists. I focus on the following key aspects: (i) the historic connection of Cartesian Linguistics to previous linguistic theorizing, (ii) the development of Chomsky’s own theorizing, (iii) the empirical work addressing the problem of language acquisition and (iv) the problem of computational modeling of language learning. Chomsky claims that his view is situated within a rationalist Cartesian tradition and that only rationalists will be able to account fully for all aspects of human language. My thesis challenges both claims. I found only remote connections between Cartesian and Chomskyan commitments. Chomsky holds that (i) language is species-specific, (ii) language is domain-specific, and (iii) language acquisition depends on innate knowledge. Descartes accepted (i), but argued that language is an indicator of domain-general intelligence. Innate resources play a different role for language acquisition for Chomsky and for Descartes. Chomsky revived linguistics during the 1950s by promising to make it a rigorous part of the biological sciences. However, his work has not resulted in a better understanding of language acquisition and use. Key concepts like ‘innateness’, ‘Universal Grammar’ and ‘Language Acquisition Device’ remain in need of precise definition, and the Poverty of the Stimulus Argument does not rule out data-driven domain-general language acquisition. Empirical work in developmental psychology has demonstrated that children acquire and practice many language-related cognitive abilities long before they produce their first words. Chomsky’s dictum that language learning is uniform across the species and invariably follows genetically determined stages remains empirically unconfirmed. Computational modeling has accounted for some internal structure of language acquisition mechanisms and simulates the specific conditions under which children learn language. Contemporary models use samples of child-directed-speech as input and have replicated numerous aspects of human performance. Given my findings I suggest that Chomskyan linguistics is not Cartesian in substance or in spirit. Descartes was wary of those “who take no account of experience and think that truth will spring from their brains like Minerva from the head of Jupiter” (CSM I, p. 21). His science relied on sense experience (empiricism) and deduction (rationalism) and a truly Cartesian Linguistics will revive this part of the Cartesian tradition. vi Acknowledgements Acknowledging adequately all the help and support I received while writing this thesis would require writing a new thesis. Therefore, I shall keep the following brief and incomplete. First, and foremost I want to thank my supervisor, Thomas Vinci, for taking over the supervising baton at a time when no one else was willing to do so, and for infecting me with his appreciation of Cartesian scholarship. I benefited from his detailed knowledge, and unconventional interpretation, of historic texts, and from his encouragement to tackle a very complex and demanding, yet rewarding project. Sincere thanks also go to Hélène Deacon, for her genuine interest, her tremendous support, and her extremely helpful and timely feedback. Discussions with her were always at once intellectually challenging and very pleasant. I further thank Darren Abramson and Michael Hymers for reading several drafts, Rebecca McAllister and Shannon Doherty for editing help, and Robert Stainton for commenting on my thesis and reminding me of the importance of academic integrity. I am grateful that the Philosophy Department at Dalhousie University provided a supportive environment for my studies. In addition I would like to acknowledge the generous intellectual support I received from outside of the Dalhousie community. I thank Daniel Flage for help in obtaining and understanding Cartesian texts, for his patient and detailed responses to my never-ending questions, and for commenting extensively on several drafts of chapter 2. I thank Morten H. Christiansen for his patient and helpful responses to my questions about computational modeling and experimental language acquisition research, and for directing me to countless publications that were relevant for my research. I thank Jeffrey Elman for explaining the fundamentals of connectionist modeling in accessible terms, and for his help in uncovering that ‘the famous paper’ referred to in Cartesian Linguistics is an imaginary object. I also thank Nick Chater, Shimon Edelman, Brian MacWhinney, Robert Martin, W. Keith Percival, and Geoffrey Sampson for their helpful explanations of matters that were obscure to me, and for their detailed replies to my questions. Finally, I am greatly indebted to Paul M. Postal for replying in an incredibly helpful manner to my unfocused questions, for explaining with clarity the fundamentals of linguistics proper, for making me aware of the work of Jerrold J. Katz and Pieter Seuren, and for invaluable pragmatic advice, especially during the challenging revisions