What Would Lenneberg Think? Biolinguistics in the Third Millennium

IF 0.6 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Biolinguistics Pub Date : 2017-12-31 DOI:10.5964/bioling.9109
W. Fitch
{"title":"What Would Lenneberg Think? Biolinguistics in the Third Millennium","authors":"W. Fitch","doi":"10.5964/bioling.9109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Biolinguistics, construed broadly as the study of human language from multiple biological viewpoints, was first placed on a solid modern foundation by Eric Lenneberg’s impressive Biological Foundations of Language in 1967. Lenneberg conceived of our capacity to acquire language as a species-typical aspect of human cognition—a conception so widespread today that it is difficult to realize how radical it seemed to many at the time. Although Lenneberg argued that our language capacity has some species-typical genetic and neural components, he clearly recognized that it has a huge learned, culture-specific component as well. Lenneberg had thus already leap-frogged the unproductive “nature versus nurture” dichotomy that has bedevilled so many debates about language since that time. He also recognized that human language differs in important ways from animal communication, and raised the question of whether the roots of language are best sought in cognition or communication—another prominent preoccupation in modern debates. In short, although he apparently did not adopt the term “biolinguistics” himself, Eric Lenneberg can rightly be seen as an important founding father of contemporary biolinguistics. This makes a celebration in this journal, fifty years later, of his magnum opus highly appropriate. In this essay, I will first briefly discuss a few of Lenneberg’s many insights that I think bear repeating today. Then, I turn to a discussion of modern empirical developments in biolinguistics that I think Lenneberg would find welcome, and in many cases surprising, were he alive today. I will thus focus less on the aspects of Lenneberg’s thought that have stood the test of time well, and are still essentially correct today (which covers many of them) and more on aspects where modern data invite a reconsideration of some of his ideas. These come from three general areas: comparative investigations, modern neuroscience and especially molecular genetics. My goal is to provide a concise overview of those developments that I believe, were Lenneberg to appear for a conversation about biolinguistics today, he","PeriodicalId":54041,"journal":{"name":"Biolinguistics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biolinguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5964/bioling.9109","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: 3

Abstract

Biolinguistics, construed broadly as the study of human language from multiple biological viewpoints, was first placed on a solid modern foundation by Eric Lenneberg’s impressive Biological Foundations of Language in 1967. Lenneberg conceived of our capacity to acquire language as a species-typical aspect of human cognition—a conception so widespread today that it is difficult to realize how radical it seemed to many at the time. Although Lenneberg argued that our language capacity has some species-typical genetic and neural components, he clearly recognized that it has a huge learned, culture-specific component as well. Lenneberg had thus already leap-frogged the unproductive “nature versus nurture” dichotomy that has bedevilled so many debates about language since that time. He also recognized that human language differs in important ways from animal communication, and raised the question of whether the roots of language are best sought in cognition or communication—another prominent preoccupation in modern debates. In short, although he apparently did not adopt the term “biolinguistics” himself, Eric Lenneberg can rightly be seen as an important founding father of contemporary biolinguistics. This makes a celebration in this journal, fifty years later, of his magnum opus highly appropriate. In this essay, I will first briefly discuss a few of Lenneberg’s many insights that I think bear repeating today. Then, I turn to a discussion of modern empirical developments in biolinguistics that I think Lenneberg would find welcome, and in many cases surprising, were he alive today. I will thus focus less on the aspects of Lenneberg’s thought that have stood the test of time well, and are still essentially correct today (which covers many of them) and more on aspects where modern data invite a reconsideration of some of his ideas. These come from three general areas: comparative investigations, modern neuroscience and especially molecular genetics. My goal is to provide a concise overview of those developments that I believe, were Lenneberg to appear for a conversation about biolinguistics today, he
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
Lenneberg会怎么想?第三个千年的生物语言学
生物语言学被广泛理解为从多种生物学角度研究人类语言,1967年埃里克·伦内伯格令人印象深刻的《语言生物学基础》首次奠定了坚实的现代基础。Lenneberg认为我们获得语言的能力是人类认知的一个典型方面——这一概念在今天如此广泛,以至于很难意识到它在当时对许多人来说是多么激进。尽管Lenneberg认为我们的语言能力有一些物种典型的遗传和神经成分,但他清楚地认识到,它也有一个巨大的习得性、特定文化的成分。因此,Lenneberg已经跳出了低效的“天生与后天”的二分法,自那时以来,这种二分法一直困扰着许多关于语言的辩论。他还认识到人类语言在重要方面与动物交流不同,并提出了一个问题,即语言的根源是最好在认知还是交流中寻找——这是现代辩论中的另一个突出问题。简言之,尽管埃里克·伦内伯格本人显然没有采用“生物语言学”一词,但他可以理所当然地被视为当代生物语言学的重要创始人。这使得五十年后在这本杂志上对他的代表作的庆祝非常恰当。在这篇文章中,我将首先简要讨论Lenneberg的许多见解中的一些,我认为这些见解今天值得重复。然后,我转向对生物语言学现代实证发展的讨论,我认为如果Lenneberg今天还活着,他会受到欢迎,在很多情况下也会感到惊讶。因此,我将不再关注伦内伯格思想中经得起时间考验、今天仍然基本正确的方面(涵盖了其中的许多方面),而更多地关注现代数据需要重新考虑他的一些想法的方面。它们来自三个领域:比较研究、现代神经科学,尤其是分子遗传学。我的目标是简要概述我认为,如果Lenneberg今天出现在关于生物语言学的对话中,他
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