Language in Language Evolution Research

IF 0.6 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Biolinguistics Pub Date : 2021-03-23 DOI:10.5964/bioling.9157
Sławomir Wacewicz, Przemysław Żywiczyński, S. Hartmann, M. Pleyer, A. Benítez‐Burraco
{"title":"Language in Language Evolution Research","authors":"Sławomir Wacewicz, Przemysław Żywiczyński, S. Hartmann, M. Pleyer, A. Benítez‐Burraco","doi":"10.5964/bioling.9157","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many controversies in language evolution research derive from the fact that language is itself a natural language word, which makes the underlying concept fuzzy and cumbersome, and a common perception is that progress in language evolution research is hindered because researchers do not ‘talk about the same thing’. In this article, we claim that agreement on a single, top-down definition of language is not a sine qua non for good and productive research in the field of language evolution. First, we use the example of the notion FLN (‘faculty of language in the narrow sense’) to demonstrate how the specific wording of an important top-down definition of (the faculty of) language can—surprisingly—be inconsequential to actual research practice. We then review four approaches to language evolution that we estimate to be particularly influential in the last decade. We show how their breadth precludes a single common conceptualization of language but instead leads to a family resemblance pattern, which underwrites fruitful communication between these approaches, leading to cross-fertilisation and synergies.","PeriodicalId":54041,"journal":{"name":"Biolinguistics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biolinguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5964/bioling.9157","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: 0

Abstract

Many controversies in language evolution research derive from the fact that language is itself a natural language word, which makes the underlying concept fuzzy and cumbersome, and a common perception is that progress in language evolution research is hindered because researchers do not ‘talk about the same thing’. In this article, we claim that agreement on a single, top-down definition of language is not a sine qua non for good and productive research in the field of language evolution. First, we use the example of the notion FLN (‘faculty of language in the narrow sense’) to demonstrate how the specific wording of an important top-down definition of (the faculty of) language can—surprisingly—be inconsequential to actual research practice. We then review four approaches to language evolution that we estimate to be particularly influential in the last decade. We show how their breadth precludes a single common conceptualization of language but instead leads to a family resemblance pattern, which underwrites fruitful communication between these approaches, leading to cross-fertilisation and synergies.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
语言进化研究中的语言
语言进化研究中的许多争议源于这样一个事实,即语言本身就是一个自然语言单词,这使得潜在的概念变得模糊和繁琐。人们普遍认为,语言进化研究的进展受到阻碍,因为研究人员不“谈论同一件事”。在这篇文章中,我们声称,就语言的单一、自上而下的定义达成一致,并不是在语言进化领域进行良好和富有成效的研究的必要条件。首先,我们以FLN(“狭义语言能力”)概念为例,展示了一个重要的自上而下的语言定义的具体措辞如何——令人惊讶地——与实际研究实践无关。然后,我们回顾了四种语言进化方法,我们估计这些方法在过去十年中特别有影响力。我们展示了它们的广度如何排除了单一的语言概念化,而是导致了一种家族相似模式,这种模式保证了这些方法之间富有成效的沟通,从而导致了相互滋养和协同作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 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
期刊最新文献
Biolinguistics end-of-year notice 2023 Why large language models are poor theories of human linguistic cognition: A reply to Piantadosi Social evolution and commitment: Bridging the gap between formal linguistic theories and language evolution research A future without a past: Philosophical consequences of Merge Eademne sunt?
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1