语言的神经生物学:超越单语言者

IF 0.6 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Biolinguistics Pub Date : 2017-12-31 DOI:10.5964/bioling.9095
E. Bialystok, J. Kroll
{"title":"语言的神经生物学:超越单语言者","authors":"E. Bialystok, J. Kroll","doi":"10.5964/bioling.9095","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The publication of Biological Foundations of Language in 1967 by Eric Lenneberg fundamentally changed the way we think about language. Chomsky brought language from the abstract realm of philosophy into the more grounded world of mind, and Lenneberg completed the process by rooting that mental view of language firmly in the brain. Without Lenneberg, it is difficult to imagine the immense amount of research over the past 50 years that has revealed its structure and function, its social and cognitive dimensions, and obviously, its neurobiology. For Chomsky, the biological basis of language was static, based on innate concepts that unfolded with experience and the reference to biology was largely metaphoric: “mental organ”. For Lenneberg, the biological basis of language was real and dynamic. He was the first thinker to seriously understand language as part of human cognition: “[Words] stand for a cognitive process, that is, the act of categorization or the formation of concepts” (Lenneberg, 1967: 365, emphasis in original). This conception of language blossomed over the subsequent decades, leading to more sophisticated accounts of human language that were based on the use of new methodologies that Lenneberg was unlikely to even imagine. The expansion of technology for observing the brain, the explosion in the sheer amount of knowledge that was accumulated about the brain and its function, and the widespread access to these technologies that became available irrevocably changed the way that language research was conducted (Friederici 2017, Kemmerer 2015). Lenneberg’s visionary ideas about the neurobiology of language set the stage for 50 years of exciting and productive study. In parallel with Lenneberg’s developing understanding of language as a biological system, another field began to emerge around the same time. There was growing interest in the process of learning a second language, particularly in adulthood, spawning the field of second-language acquisition (SLA). Much of this research was generated in response to practical needs. A salient example comes from the post-war efforts of The British Council to teach English in various corners of the British Empire by recruiting graduates from the top schools such as Oxford and sending them to distant lands. Armed with little more than intelligence and intuition, many of these teachers thought deeply about their experiences and began","PeriodicalId":54041,"journal":{"name":"Biolinguistics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Neurobiology of Language: Looking Beyond Monolinguals\",\"authors\":\"E. Bialystok, J. Kroll\",\"doi\":\"10.5964/bioling.9095\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The publication of Biological Foundations of Language in 1967 by Eric Lenneberg fundamentally changed the way we think about language. Chomsky brought language from the abstract realm of philosophy into the more grounded world of mind, and Lenneberg completed the process by rooting that mental view of language firmly in the brain. Without Lenneberg, it is difficult to imagine the immense amount of research over the past 50 years that has revealed its structure and function, its social and cognitive dimensions, and obviously, its neurobiology. For Chomsky, the biological basis of language was static, based on innate concepts that unfolded with experience and the reference to biology was largely metaphoric: “mental organ”. For Lenneberg, the biological basis of language was real and dynamic. He was the first thinker to seriously understand language as part of human cognition: “[Words] stand for a cognitive process, that is, the act of categorization or the formation of concepts” (Lenneberg, 1967: 365, emphasis in original). This conception of language blossomed over the subsequent decades, leading to more sophisticated accounts of human language that were based on the use of new methodologies that Lenneberg was unlikely to even imagine. The expansion of technology for observing the brain, the explosion in the sheer amount of knowledge that was accumulated about the brain and its function, and the widespread access to these technologies that became available irrevocably changed the way that language research was conducted (Friederici 2017, Kemmerer 2015). Lenneberg’s visionary ideas about the neurobiology of language set the stage for 50 years of exciting and productive study. In parallel with Lenneberg’s developing understanding of language as a biological system, another field began to emerge around the same time. There was growing interest in the process of learning a second language, particularly in adulthood, spawning the field of second-language acquisition (SLA). Much of this research was generated in response to practical needs. A salient example comes from the post-war efforts of The British Council to teach English in various corners of the British Empire by recruiting graduates from the top schools such as Oxford and sending them to distant lands. Armed with little more than intelligence and intuition, many of these teachers thought deeply about their experiences and began\",\"PeriodicalId\":54041,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Biolinguistics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Biolinguistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5964/bioling.9095\",\"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.9095","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: 6

摘要

埃里克·伦内伯格于1967年出版的《语言的生物学基础》从根本上改变了我们对语言的看法。乔姆斯基将语言从抽象的哲学领域带入了更接地气的思维世界,而伦内伯格则通过将这种心理语言观牢牢植根于大脑来完成这一过程。如果没有Lenneberg,很难想象在过去50年里有大量的研究揭示了它的结构和功能、社会和认知层面,显然还有它的神经生物学。对乔姆斯基来说,语言的生物学基础是静态的,基于随着经验而展开的固有概念,而对生物学的引用在很大程度上是隐喻性的:“心理器官”。对Lenneberg来说,语言的生物学基础是真实和动态的。他是第一个认真理解语言是人类认知的一部分的思想家:“[单词]代表一个认知过程,即分类或概念形成的行为”(Lenneberg,1967:365,原文强调)。这种语言概念在随后的几十年里蓬勃发展,导致了对人类语言的更复杂的描述,这些描述是基于Lenneberg甚至不可能想象到的新方法的使用。观察大脑的技术的扩展,积累的关于大脑及其功能的知识量的激增,以及对这些技术的广泛使用,不可逆转地改变了语言研究的进行方式(Friederici 2017,Kemmerer 2015)。Lenneberg关于语言神经生物学的富有远见的想法为50年来令人兴奋和富有成效的研究奠定了基础。在Lenneberg逐渐将语言理解为一个生物系统的同时,另一个领域也开始出现。人们对学习第二语言的过程越来越感兴趣,尤其是在成年后,这催生了第二语言习得(SLA)领域。这些研究大多是根据实际需要进行的。一个突出的例子来自战后英国文化协会努力在大英帝国的各个角落教授英语,从牛津等顶尖学校招收毕业生,并将他们送往遥远的土地。这些老师中的许多人只凭着智慧和直觉,深入思考自己的经历,并开始
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Neurobiology of Language: Looking Beyond Monolinguals
The publication of Biological Foundations of Language in 1967 by Eric Lenneberg fundamentally changed the way we think about language. Chomsky brought language from the abstract realm of philosophy into the more grounded world of mind, and Lenneberg completed the process by rooting that mental view of language firmly in the brain. Without Lenneberg, it is difficult to imagine the immense amount of research over the past 50 years that has revealed its structure and function, its social and cognitive dimensions, and obviously, its neurobiology. For Chomsky, the biological basis of language was static, based on innate concepts that unfolded with experience and the reference to biology was largely metaphoric: “mental organ”. For Lenneberg, the biological basis of language was real and dynamic. He was the first thinker to seriously understand language as part of human cognition: “[Words] stand for a cognitive process, that is, the act of categorization or the formation of concepts” (Lenneberg, 1967: 365, emphasis in original). This conception of language blossomed over the subsequent decades, leading to more sophisticated accounts of human language that were based on the use of new methodologies that Lenneberg was unlikely to even imagine. The expansion of technology for observing the brain, the explosion in the sheer amount of knowledge that was accumulated about the brain and its function, and the widespread access to these technologies that became available irrevocably changed the way that language research was conducted (Friederici 2017, Kemmerer 2015). Lenneberg’s visionary ideas about the neurobiology of language set the stage for 50 years of exciting and productive study. In parallel with Lenneberg’s developing understanding of language as a biological system, another field began to emerge around the same time. There was growing interest in the process of learning a second language, particularly in adulthood, spawning the field of second-language acquisition (SLA). Much of this research was generated in response to practical needs. A salient example comes from the post-war efforts of The British Council to teach English in various corners of the British Empire by recruiting graduates from the top schools such as Oxford and sending them to distant lands. Armed with little more than intelligence and intuition, many of these teachers thought deeply about their experiences and began
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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