Lenneberg做对了什么:语言进化研究的同源程序

IF 0.6 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
S. Balari, G. Lorenzo
{"title":"Lenneberg做对了什么:语言进化研究的同源程序","authors":"S. Balari, G. Lorenzo","doi":"10.5964/bioling.9083","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"By 1967, it was clear to Eric Lenneberg that reconstructing the phylogenetic history of language should require the adoption of a non-functional (or Owenian) homology concept for grounding relevant comparisons. Fifty years later, most biolinguistic approaches have betrayed this project, for they routinely derive their conclusions regarding the unique/shared status of language on merely folk grounds — as dramatically illustrated in Hauser, Chomsky & Fitch vs. Pinker & Jackendoff’s debate, or based on functional considerations — as in Chomsky’s recent conceptualization of language as a unique tool for thought. Here we claim that Lenneberg’s project needs to be resumed and we articulate some suggestions about how to conduct it, taking advantage of recent findings and new conceptual insights concerning two crucial levels of analysis actually pinpointed by him — namely, anatomical/molecular structure and physiological function.","PeriodicalId":54041,"journal":{"name":"Biolinguistics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What Lenneberg Got Right: A Homological Program for the Study of Language Evolution\",\"authors\":\"S. Balari, G. Lorenzo\",\"doi\":\"10.5964/bioling.9083\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"By 1967, it was clear to Eric Lenneberg that reconstructing the phylogenetic history of language should require the adoption of a non-functional (or Owenian) homology concept for grounding relevant comparisons. Fifty years later, most biolinguistic approaches have betrayed this project, for they routinely derive their conclusions regarding the unique/shared status of language on merely folk grounds — as dramatically illustrated in Hauser, Chomsky & Fitch vs. Pinker & Jackendoff’s debate, or based on functional considerations — as in Chomsky’s recent conceptualization of language as a unique tool for thought. Here we claim that Lenneberg’s project needs to be resumed and we articulate some suggestions about how to conduct it, taking advantage of recent findings and new conceptual insights concerning two crucial levels of analysis actually pinpointed by him — namely, anatomical/molecular structure and physiological function.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54041,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Biolinguistics\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Biolinguistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5964/bioling.9083\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biolinguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5964/bioling.9083","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

到1967年,Eric Lenneberg清楚地认识到,重建语言的系统发育历史应该需要采用非功能(或欧文式)同源概念来进行相关比较。五十年后,大多数生物语言学方法都背叛了这一计划,因为他们通常只是在民间的基础上得出关于语言的独特/共享地位的结论——正如豪瑟、乔姆斯基和费奇与平克和杰克多夫的辩论中所戏剧性地说明的那样,或者基于功能考虑——正如乔姆斯基最近将语言概念化为一种独特的思维工具。在这里,我们声称Lenneberg的项目需要恢复,我们阐明了一些关于如何进行它的建议,利用最近的发现和关于他实际指出的两个关键分析水平的新概念见解-即解剖/分子结构和生理功能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
What Lenneberg Got Right: A Homological Program for the Study of Language Evolution
By 1967, it was clear to Eric Lenneberg that reconstructing the phylogenetic history of language should require the adoption of a non-functional (or Owenian) homology concept for grounding relevant comparisons. Fifty years later, most biolinguistic approaches have betrayed this project, for they routinely derive their conclusions regarding the unique/shared status of language on merely folk grounds — as dramatically illustrated in Hauser, Chomsky & Fitch vs. Pinker & Jackendoff’s debate, or based on functional considerations — as in Chomsky’s recent conceptualization of language as a unique tool for thought. Here we claim that Lenneberg’s project needs to be resumed and we articulate some suggestions about how to conduct it, taking advantage of recent findings and new conceptual insights concerning two crucial levels of analysis actually pinpointed by him — namely, anatomical/molecular structure and physiological function.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Biolinguistics
Biolinguistics LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信