Language, Mind, and Brain by 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…

3.2 Perceptual primitives Just in case you were wondering… here is a “ketch” Perceptual primitives may indeed be the way to go, but more research is needed…

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.