Why Nurture Is Natural Too

IF 0.6 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Biolinguistics Pub Date : 2016-12-30 DOI:10.5964/bioling.9057
S. Epstein
{"title":"Why Nurture Is Natural Too","authors":"S. Epstein","doi":"10.5964/bioling.9057","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Both within and outside generative linguistic circles, it is often claimed that at least two factors determine organismic development, hence determine language development in humans. First, an innate capacity, perhaps species-specific as well, that allows humans (but not e.g. cats) to acquire linguistic systems such as the one you are now using to transduce ‘retinal images’ to meanings. The second factor is, of course, the environmental input. Thus, we have the standard dichotomy ‘nature vs. nurture’. The influence of the environment is amply demonstrated, for example, through naturalistic experimentation indicating that a normal child raised in Japan acquires ‘Japanese’, but one raised in the Philippines develops ‘Tagalog’. Hence, the central role of the environment in language development. However, it is important to remember—as has been noted before, but perhaps it remains underappreciated—that it is precisely the organism’s biology (nature) that determines what experience, in any domain, can consist of (see Chomsky 2009 (originally 1966) for discussion (and resurrection) of the Rationalist roots of the idea, especially pages 103–105, concerning Cudworth and Humboldt; more recently, see e.g. Gould & Marler 1987, Jackendoff 1994, Lust 2006, Lewontin 2008, and Gallistel 2010). To clarify, a bee, for example, can perform its waggle dance for me a million times, but that ‘experience’, given my biological endowment, does not allow me to transduce the visual images of such waggling into a mental representation (knowledge) of the distance and direction to a food source. This is precisely what it does mean to a bee witnessing the exact same environmental event/waggle dance. Ultrasonic acoustic disturbances might be experience for my dog, but not for me. Thus, the ‘environment’ in this sense is not in fact the second factor, but rather, nurture is constituted of those aspects of the ill-defined ‘environment’ (which of course irrelevantly includes a K-mart store down the street from my house) that can in principle influence the developmental trajectory of one or more organs of a member of a particular species, given its innate endowment.","PeriodicalId":54041,"journal":{"name":"Biolinguistics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biolinguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5964/bioling.9057","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: 4

Abstract

Both within and outside generative linguistic circles, it is often claimed that at least two factors determine organismic development, hence determine language development in humans. First, an innate capacity, perhaps species-specific as well, that allows humans (but not e.g. cats) to acquire linguistic systems such as the one you are now using to transduce ‘retinal images’ to meanings. The second factor is, of course, the environmental input. Thus, we have the standard dichotomy ‘nature vs. nurture’. The influence of the environment is amply demonstrated, for example, through naturalistic experimentation indicating that a normal child raised in Japan acquires ‘Japanese’, but one raised in the Philippines develops ‘Tagalog’. Hence, the central role of the environment in language development. However, it is important to remember—as has been noted before, but perhaps it remains underappreciated—that it is precisely the organism’s biology (nature) that determines what experience, in any domain, can consist of (see Chomsky 2009 (originally 1966) for discussion (and resurrection) of the Rationalist roots of the idea, especially pages 103–105, concerning Cudworth and Humboldt; more recently, see e.g. Gould & Marler 1987, Jackendoff 1994, Lust 2006, Lewontin 2008, and Gallistel 2010). To clarify, a bee, for example, can perform its waggle dance for me a million times, but that ‘experience’, given my biological endowment, does not allow me to transduce the visual images of such waggling into a mental representation (knowledge) of the distance and direction to a food source. This is precisely what it does mean to a bee witnessing the exact same environmental event/waggle dance. Ultrasonic acoustic disturbances might be experience for my dog, but not for me. Thus, the ‘environment’ in this sense is not in fact the second factor, but rather, nurture is constituted of those aspects of the ill-defined ‘environment’ (which of course irrelevantly includes a K-mart store down the street from my house) that can in principle influence the developmental trajectory of one or more organs of a member of a particular species, given its innate endowment.
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
为什么后天培养也是自然的
在生成语言学圈内外,通常认为至少有两个因素决定了机体的发展,从而决定了人类的语言发展。首先,一种天生的能力,也许也是物种特有的,它允许人类(但不是猫)获得语言系统,比如你现在用来将“视网膜图像”转换为含义的语言系统。第二个因素当然是环境因素。因此,我们有了标准的二分法“先天vs后天”。环境的影响得到了充分的证明,例如,通过自然主义实验表明,在日本长大的正常儿童学会了“日语”,但在菲律宾长大的儿童则学会了“他加禄语”。因此,环境在语言发展中的核心作用。然而,重要的是要记住——正如之前所指出的,但也许它仍然被低估了——正是有机体的生物学(自然)决定了经验,在任何领域,可以由什么组成(见乔姆斯基2009年(最初1966年)关于理性主义思想根源的讨论(和复活),特别是103-105页,关于Cudworth和Humboldt;最近,如Gould & Marler 1987, Jackendoff 1994, Lust 2006, Lewontin 2008, Gallistel 2010)。举例来说,一只蜜蜂可以为我表演它的摇摆舞一百万次,但鉴于我的生物天赋,这种“经验”不允许我把这种摇摆舞的视觉图像转化为对食物来源的距离和方向的心理表征(知识)。这正是蜜蜂目睹完全相同的环境事件/摇摆舞的意义。超声波声干扰可能是我的狗的经验,但不是我。因此,从这个意义上说,“环境”实际上并不是第二个因素,相反,养育是由那些定义不明确的“环境”(当然,这当然不相关地包括我家附近的K-mart商店)的各个方面组成的,这些方面原则上可以影响特定物种成员的一个或多个器官的发育轨迹,因为它具有先天禀性。
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