Language, Mind, and Brainby Ewa Dabrowska

Chapter 7: Words

UG again

• Q: What is the innateness position on the lexicon?

UG again

• Q: What is the innateness position on the lexicon?

• A: It presumes that the lexicon is not learned, that all the concepts are there and it is just a matter of learning what sounds to associate to what concepts.

• Q: What problems are there with this?

UG again

• Q: What is the innateness position on the lexicon?

• A: It presumes that the lexicon is not learned, that all the concepts are there and it is just a matter of learning what sounds to associate to what concepts.

• Q: What problems are there with this?• A: Lots of words can’t be innate, and where are

they on the genome…? I would add that the meanings are not the same in all lexicons…

1. The semantics of locative terms

• Locative terms such as in, on, behind are not universal, they are subject to conventional construal, polysemy, and cross-linguistic variation.

1.1 Conventional construal

• The distinctions between in, on, through and similar spatial terms are language-specific, cf. Cora uh- ‘inside slope’ vs. ah- ‘outside slope’

1.2 Polysemy

• The lexicon can’t be infinite, so many words have multiple meanings, and the range of meanings is language-specific, as we see in over.

1.3 Cross-linguistic variation

• Languages have lots of different ways of encoding information about spatial relationships (verbs, prepositions, etc.)

• Different languages can focus on different parts of a spatial relationship (position of landmark vs. shape of landmark), or use relative vs. absolute systems of location

• When linguists postulate “semantic features”, they have an English bias.

2.1 The acquisition of locative terms

• What happens when children acquire languages with radically different systems for encoding location?– We shall look at:

• Walpiri• Tzotzil• Japanese• Korean

Four languages

• Walpiri – no words corresponding to in, on, under, and no evidence that children are even looking for such meanings

• Tzotzil – uses an absolute system (E vs. W, based on tilt of land), and children acquire it early and well

• Japanese – verbs are acquired earlier than particles, despite the fact that particles are available and correspond to supposed “universals”

• Korean – very different system, and children follow the language-specific patterns from the very beginning, there is no evidence of use of pre-linguistic concepts

3. Innate structures?

• Are there innate structures? If so, are we dealing with semantic primitives or perceptual primitives?

3.1 Semantic primitives

• Q: What’s wrong with this approach?

3.1 Semantic primitives

• Q: What’s wrong with this approach?• A: Very few words can really be

decomposed into primitives; we don’t know how speakers translate perception into primitives; there is no evidence of psychological reality – I’d add that advocates of semantic primitives can’t agree on a list and their lists seem to grow…

4. Lexical learning & 5. Conclusion

• It seems that the constraints are perceptual, and different languages teach the learner to attend to different things available to perception.

• Children must do sophisticated detective work, and must learn to project distinctions that are not given in the input.

• This capacity can be applied to grammar too.