Date: Tuesday 2 April, 2013
Organizer: Anna Maria di Sciullo (Université du Québec à Montréal)
Deadline for submission: November 15, 2012
Notification of acceptance: January 20, 2013
Submission of abstracts: EasyChair
This workshop addresses fundamental questions on the properties of the Language Faculty from a biolinguistic perspective, with a particular attention on how this perspective contributes to further understanding of linguistic phenomena with large empirical coverage.
The study of the relation between humans’ biology and the Language Faculty is central in Biolinguistics (Lenneberg 1967; Chomsky 1983, 2005; Jenkins 2000, 2004; Gallistel, 2009; Di Sciullo et al 2010; Berwick and Chomsky 2011; Di Sciullo and Boeckx 2011).
While theoretical hypotheses about this relation emerged in the generative enterprise since its beginnings, recent developments directly address the issue in terms of the properties of the ‘language organ’. Different hypotheses about the properties of the generative procedure giving rise to the discrete infinity of language are still under discussion, and their connection with biology is open to important cross-disciplinary work (Hauser, Chomsky and Fitch 2002; Piattelli-Palmarini and Uriagereka 2008; Larson 2011; Lasnik 2011, 2012; Arsenijević and Hinzen 2012).
Advances have been made in human-animal studies to differentiate human language from animal communication (Jarvis 2004; Fitch and Hauser 2004; Friederici 2009; Fitch 2010). Contributions from neuroscience also point to the exclusive properties of the human brain for language (Moro 2010; Friederici et al. 2011; Patel 2008, 2012). Studies of genetically based language impairments also contribute to the understanding of the properties of the language organ (Ross and Bever 2004; Bishop et al. 2005; Hancock and Bever 2012; Patel et al. 2008; Wexler 2003).
This workshop invites contributions showing how the theoretical and experimental works on the biological basis of language shed light on core linguistic phenomena.
The relation between language variation and biology is another important area of research in biolinguistics, as variation is a constant in the observable biological world, as it is in language variation and historical evolution (Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman 1981; Lewontin 2000). Theoretical approaches to language variation stemming from works on population genetics, and syntactic approaches to language phylogeny opened new horizons for the study of language variation, and more broadly for language development, including its development in the child (Bever 1981; Longobardi and Guardiano 2011; Niyogi 2006, Niyogi and Berwick 2009; Di Sciullo 2011, 2012, Biberauer, Holmberg and Roberts 2012). Recent works on the poverty of the stimulus bring additional arguments to the biological nature of language, and they address central issues related to deterministic/probabilistic theories of language learning and language variation (Berwick et al 2011; Yang 2002, 2008, 2011).
Other works address the question of why parameters emerge and why resetting of parameters occurs, and consider the role of external, environmental factors in language variation and change. This workshop invites contributions with large empirical coverage that address fundamental questions on language development and language variation and their technical instantiations as feature-valuing, symmetry-breaking, functional flexibility, as a distinctive instance of variation and development in the natural world.
The relation between Language as a computational procedure and principles reducing complexity has been part of the research agenda in the generative enterprise since the 1950’s. Framed within biolinguistics, the principles of efficient computation are natural laws affecting the properties of the operations and the derivations of the (Narrow) Language Faculty (Chomsky 2005, 2011). They apply to Merge (No Tampering Condition), as well as to the derivational procedure (minimal search, phases, Agree), to SM (Pronounce the Minimum, Chomsky 2011), and CI (Reference Set, Reinhart 2006; Local Economy, Fox 1999) interfaces. They reduce the specific properties of the Language Faculty, while they affect all aspects of the generative procedure.
Several questions arise regarding the properties of the so-called ‘third factor’ in language development, including the following: How do the principles of efficient computation address classical computational notions of complexity, such as Kolmogorov’s 1965 definition, as well as novel notions of complexity? How are they related to natural laws? What is their relation with the Strong Minimalist Thesis? This workshop invites contributions with large empirical coverage that address fundamental questions on principles of efficient computation in the study of the biology of language.
Arsenijević, B. and W. Hinzen. 2012. On the absence of X-within-X recursion in human grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 43(3): 423–440.
Berwick, R.C. and N. Chomsky. 2011. The Biolinguistic Program: The Current State of its Evolution. In A.M. Di Sciullo and C. Boeckx (eds.). The Biolinguistic Entreprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty. 19–41. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Berwick, R.C., P. Pietroski, B. Yankama, and N. Chomsky. 2011. Poverty of the Stimulus Revisited. Cognitive Science 35: 1207–42.
Bever, T.G. 1981. Normal Acquisition Processes Explain the Critical Period for Language Learning. In Diller, K.C. (ed.). Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude, 176–198. Newbury House.
Biberauer, T., A. Holmberg, and I. Roberts. 2012. A Syntactic Universal and its Consequences. Ms. University of Cambridge.
Bishop, Dorothy V. M., Caroline V. Adams & Courtenay F. Norbury. 2005. Distinct genetic influences on grammar and phonological short-term memory deficits: Evidence from 6-year-old twins. Genes, Brain and Behavior 5, 158–169.
Cavalli-Sforza L. and M. Feldman. 1981. Cultural Transmission and Evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Chomsky, N. 2011. Poverty of Stimulus: Unfinished Business. Lecture presented in the Lecture Series ‘Sprache und Gehirn – Zur Sprachfahigkeit des Menschen’ organized by Angela D. Friederici in the context of the Johannes Gutenberg endowed professorship. Summer 2010.
Chomsky, N. 2005. Three Factors in Language Design. Linguistic Inquiry. 36: 1–22.
Chomsky, N. 1988. Language and the Problems of Knowledge. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 1980. Discussion. In Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (ed.). Language and Learning. The Debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky. 73–83. London: Routledge.
Chomsky, N. 1975. Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon.
Di Sciullo, A.M. 2012. An Evolutionary Developmental Universal: Evidence from the Morpho-Syntactic Evolution of the Nominal domain. Paper presented at the Typology and Universals in Word-Formation Conference.
Di Sciullo, A.M. 2011. A Biolinguistic Approach to Variation. In A.M. Di Sciullo and C. Boeckx (eds.). The Biolinguistic Entreprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty. 305–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Di Sciullo, A.M. and L. Jenkins. 2012. Biolinguistics and the Nature of the Language Faculty. To appear in Language.
Di Sciullo, A.M., M. Piattelli-Palmarini, K. Wexler, R.C. Berwick, C. Boeckx, L. Jenkins, J. Uriagereka, K. Stromswold, L. Cheng, H. Harley, A. Wedel, J. McGilvray, E. van Gelderen, and G.T. Bever. 2010. The Biological Nature of Human Language. Biolinguistics 4:4–34.
Fitch, W.T. 2010. The Evolution of Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fitch, W.T. and M.D. Hauser. 2004. Computational Constraints on Syntactic processing in Nonhuman Primates. Science 303: 377–380.
Fox, D. 1999. Local Economy. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.
Friederici, A.D. 2009. The brain differentiates hierarchical and probabilistic grammars. In Piattelli-Palmarini, M., J. Uriagereka, and P. Salaburu (eds.). Of Minds and Language: A dialogue with Noam Chomsky in the Basque country. 184–194. New York: Oxford University Press.
Friederici, A.D., J. Bahlmann, R. Friedrich, and M. Makuuchi. 2011. The Neural Basis of Recursion. Biolinguistics 5(1-2): 87–104.
Friedrich, R., and A.D. Friederici. 2009. Mathematical Logic in the Human Brain: Syntax. PLoS ONE, 4(5): e5599.
Gallistel, C.R. 2009. The foundational abstractions. In Piattelli-Palmirini, M., J. Uriagereka, and P. Salaburu. (eds). Of minds and language: A dialogue with Noam Chomsky in the Basque country. 58–73. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hancock, R. and T.G. Bever. 2012. Genetic Factors and Normal Variation in the Organization of Language. Ms. University of Arizona at Tucson.
Hauser, M.D., N. Chomsky, and W.T. Fitch. 2002. The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298: 1569–1579.
Jarvis, Erich D. 2004. Learned Birdsong and the Neurobiology of Human Language. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 1016: 749–777.
Jenkins, L. 2000. Biolinguistics. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.
Jenkins, L. (ed.). 2004. Variation and Universals in Biolinguistics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Kolmogorov, A.N. 1965. Three approaches to the quantitative definition of information. Problems in Information Transmission 1.1–7.
Larson, R.K. 2011. Clauses, Propositions and Phases. In A.M. Di Sciullo and C. Boeckx (eds.). The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty. 366–391. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lasnik, H. 2011. What kind of computing device is the human language faculty? In A.M. Di Sciullo and C. Boeckx (eds.). The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty. 354–365. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lasnik, H. 2012. A Surprizing Consequence of Single Cycle Syntax. In A.M. Di Sciullo (ed.). Towards a Biolinguistic Understanding of Grammar: Essays on Interfaces. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lenneberg, E.H. 1967. Biological Foundations of Language. New York: Wiley.
Lewontin, R.C. 2000. The Triple Helix: Gene, Organism, and Environment. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Lewontin, R.C. 1974. The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Lightfoot, D. 2006. How New Languages Emerge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lightfoot, D. 1999. The Development of Language: Acquisition, Change, and Evolution. Malden, Mass: Blackwell.
Lightfoot, D. 1982. The Language Lottery: Toward a Biology of Grammars. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Longobardi, G. and C. Guardiano. 2011. The Biolinguistic Program and Historical Reconstruction. In A.M. Di Sciullo and C. Boeckx (eds.). The Biolinguistic Enterprise. New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty. 266–304. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Moro, A. 2010. The Boundaries of Babel: The Brain and the Enigma of Impossible Languages. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.
Niyogi, P. 2006. The Computational Nature of Language Learning and Evolution. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.
Niyogi, P. and R.C. Berwick. 2009. The proper treatment of language acquisition and change in a population setting. PNAS 106(25):10124–10129.
Piattelli-Palmarini, M. and J. Uriagereka. 2008. Still a bridge too far? Biolinguistic questions for grounding language on brains. Physics of Life Reviews 5: 207–224.
Patel, A.D. 2012. Advancing the comparative study of linguistic and musical syntactic processing. In P. Rebuschat, M. Rohrmeier, J. Hawkins, and I. Cross (eds.). Language and Music as Cognitive Systems. 248–253. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Patel, A.D. 2008. Music, Language, and the Brain. New York: Oxford University Press.
Patel, A.D., J.R. Iversen, M. Wassenaar, and P. Hagoort. 2008. Musical syntactic processing in agrammatic Broca’s aphasia. Aphasiology 22: 776–789.
Patel, A.D., E. Gibson, J. Ratner, M. Besson, and P. Holcomb. 1998. Processing syntactic relations in language and music: An event-related potential study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 10: 717–733.
Reinhart, T. 2006. Interface Strategies. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.
Ross, D.S. and T.G. Bever. 2004. The time course for language acquisition in biologically distinct populations: Evidence from deaf individuals. Brain and Language 89: 115–121.
Wexler, K. 2003. Lenneberg’s dream: Learning, normal language development and specific language impairment. In Y. Levi and J. Schaeffer (eds.). Language Competence across Populations: Toward a Definition of Specific Language Impairment. 11–61. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Yang, C. 2002. Knowledge and Learning in Natural Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yang, C. 2008. The Great Number Crunch. Journal of Linguistics. 44: 205–228.
Yang, C. 2011. Usage unevenness in child language supports grammar productivity. BU Conference on Language Development.