{"title":"50年后:与诺姆·乔姆斯基关于语言生物学研究的对话","authors":"Patrick C. Trettenbrein","doi":"10.5964/bioling.9115","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Figure 1: Noam Chomsky portrayed by Jean-Baptiste Labrune (Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0). At first, the work of Chomsky and Lenneberg as well as their respective seminal books may seem only vaguely related—after all, Biological Foundations of Language surveyed the biological literature while Syntactic Structures provided a formal analysis of natural language syntax. However, nothing could be further from the truth: Lenneberg and Chomsky cofounded what today is known as biolinguistics during their time as graduate students at Harvard. Even a quick look at Biological Foundations of Language gives this away: Chomsky contributed an appendix on “The formal nature of language” to the book. A closer look reveals that Lenneberg himself heavily relied on formal analysis (of language) just like that provided by Chomsky in order to advance his argument (in this context, see Piattelli-Palmarini, this issue, Becker, this issue). Consequently, talking to Noam Chomsky as a co-founder of the field, contemporary, and friend of Eric Lenneberg was the obvious thing to do. Luckily, Professor Chomsky took the time to answer some questions about the early days of the field, his work and relation with Lenneberg, and a number of other questions and scientific issues that (still) captivate us 50 years later.","PeriodicalId":54041,"journal":{"name":"Biolinguistics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"50 Years Later: A Conversation about the Biological Study of Language with Noam Chomsky\",\"authors\":\"Patrick C. Trettenbrein\",\"doi\":\"10.5964/bioling.9115\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Figure 1: Noam Chomsky portrayed by Jean-Baptiste Labrune (Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0). At first, the work of Chomsky and Lenneberg as well as their respective seminal books may seem only vaguely related—after all, Biological Foundations of Language surveyed the biological literature while Syntactic Structures provided a formal analysis of natural language syntax. However, nothing could be further from the truth: Lenneberg and Chomsky cofounded what today is known as biolinguistics during their time as graduate students at Harvard. Even a quick look at Biological Foundations of Language gives this away: Chomsky contributed an appendix on “The formal nature of language” to the book. A closer look reveals that Lenneberg himself heavily relied on formal analysis (of language) just like that provided by Chomsky in order to advance his argument (in this context, see Piattelli-Palmarini, this issue, Becker, this issue). Consequently, talking to Noam Chomsky as a co-founder of the field, contemporary, and friend of Eric Lenneberg was the obvious thing to do. Luckily, Professor Chomsky took the time to answer some questions about the early days of the field, his work and relation with Lenneberg, and a number of other questions and scientific issues that (still) captivate us 50 years later.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54041,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Biolinguistics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"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.9115\",\"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.9115","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
图1:诺姆·乔姆斯基由Jean-Baptiste Labrune绘制(Creative Commons by - sa 4.0)。乍一看,乔姆斯基和伦内伯格的工作以及他们各自的开创性著作似乎只是模糊地联系在一起——毕竟,《语言的生物学基础》调查了生物学文献,而《句法结构》提供了对自然语言语法的形式分析。然而,事实并非如此:伦内伯格和乔姆斯基在哈佛读研究生期间共同创立了今天被称为生物语言学的学科。即使快速浏览一下《语言的生物学基础》也能看出这一点:乔姆斯基为这本书贡献了一个附录,题为“语言的形式本质”。仔细观察就会发现,Lenneberg自己也严重依赖于乔姆斯基提供的形式分析(语言)来推进他的论点(在这种情况下,参见Piattelli-Palmarini,这个问题,Becker,这个问题)。因此,与诺姆·乔姆斯基(Noam Chomsky)交谈,作为该领域的联合创始人、同时代人、埃里克·伦内伯格(Eric Lenneberg)的朋友,是显而易见的事情。幸运的是,乔姆斯基教授花时间回答了一些关于该领域早期的问题,他的工作和与伦内伯格的关系,以及50年后仍然吸引着我们的一些其他问题和科学问题。
50 Years Later: A Conversation about the Biological Study of Language with Noam Chomsky
Figure 1: Noam Chomsky portrayed by Jean-Baptiste Labrune (Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0). At first, the work of Chomsky and Lenneberg as well as their respective seminal books may seem only vaguely related—after all, Biological Foundations of Language surveyed the biological literature while Syntactic Structures provided a formal analysis of natural language syntax. However, nothing could be further from the truth: Lenneberg and Chomsky cofounded what today is known as biolinguistics during their time as graduate students at Harvard. Even a quick look at Biological Foundations of Language gives this away: Chomsky contributed an appendix on “The formal nature of language” to the book. A closer look reveals that Lenneberg himself heavily relied on formal analysis (of language) just like that provided by Chomsky in order to advance his argument (in this context, see Piattelli-Palmarini, this issue, Becker, this issue). Consequently, talking to Noam Chomsky as a co-founder of the field, contemporary, and friend of Eric Lenneberg was the obvious thing to do. Luckily, Professor Chomsky took the time to answer some questions about the early days of the field, his work and relation with Lenneberg, and a number of other questions and scientific issues that (still) captivate us 50 years later.