PLINX101 - Principles of Linguistics - 1

Transcription

1 PLINX101 - Principles of Linguistics - 1 Linguistics as a science (From Einstein to guinea-pigs) Intellectual honesty consists in stating the precise conditions under which one will give up one s belief - Lakatos. Background reading: Any one or more of halmers or Hempel or Kuhn or Lakatos or Wolpert. Linguistic reading: Smith, 2005, esp. pp.26-32; Baker, 2001; homsky, 1995 or 2000 (ch.5). Astronomy and Astrology. Why is the former a science and the latter not? Any scientific endeavour is characterised by the search for Explanation and Universals, mediated by Theory construction (giving rise to specific hypotheses), which will involve Idealisation and Falsifiability. lassification (Taxonomy) as a necessary preliminary: Linnaeus s binomial Systema Naturae for plants and animals; word-order typology for languages. Is this science? Yes even taxonomy can be overturned or revised: Are guinea-pigs rodents (or a sister group to the primates)? Is English VSO? Is Nupe SVO or SOV? A. Explanation as well as description (See homsky, 1994; Moore & Polinsky, 2003, Introduction). The search for laws or principles. The difference between prediction and explanation. Eclipses. Reflexives from Bloomfield to Binding theory. Principles A, B, ; Subject Antecedent Parameter; Locality; -command. a. I admire myself b. The judge admires himself c. The waitress might flatter herself d. *I admire yourself e. *He admires herself f. *The waitress flattered ourselves g. The nurse showed the woman some documents about herself h. The queen said the princess had disgraced herself i. The mother of the princess has disgraced herself j. *The brother of the princess has disgraced herself D NP T VP the N PP has V DP {brother P DP disgraced herself {mother of D N the princess See also Kiguchi & Thornton, B. Narrowing the domain while pursuing universals (laws again). (See homsky, 1986, 1995)

2 Movement from Aristotle to Galileo The exclusion of emphatic reflexives. a. John himself came b. John came himself c. *The boy came herself d. *The boy s mother himself came. Idealisation (See homsky, 1965, ch. 1; Smith, 1999/2004:12-16/10-14) Ideal gases molecules perfectly elastic and no intermolecular attractive forces ompetence and performance and the homogeneity of the speech community. D. Testability/refutability/falsifiability (See the epigraph on naive falsificationism ) ontrast with confirmation (never proof) 1. Prout s hypothesis: the atomic weights that had been measured for the elements known (in 1815) appeared to be integer multiples of the atomic weight of hydrogen. So Prout postulated that only hydrogen was a truly fundamental object. Refuted (over-simplifying) by chlorine (35.45 times H). 2. Einstein s prediction that the light from distant stars (Hyades) would be seen to be bent during the 1919 solar eclipse as confirmation of the general theory of relativity. 3. The claim of a steady-state universe was refuted by Hubble s discovery (e.g. from red shift) that it was expanding and expanding faster the further away you go. This also helped explain Olber s paradox: important to have corroborative support for the new position old problems disappear. 4. Schizophrenia and its correlation with star sign. The incidence of schizophrenia correlates statistically significantly with birth date. Is this evidence for the validity of astrology and the sensibleness of gazing at your horoscope? No. A more plausible explanation one where the causal mechanism is transparent as opposed to mystic, is that schizophrenia is caused (in part) by enlargement of the ventricles of the brain due to deficient ultra-violet light during development (Furlow, 2001). The incidence of UV light is, of course, correlated with time of year which, in turn, correlates with star sign. But the effect of Saturn (or Venus or whatever) is still (so far as we know) zero. 5. Parametric variation and naive falsificationism. Generalising the role of -command: to NPI s in English and SFP s in hinese. 1a. John ate something/ some salad b. *John ate anything/ any salad 2. John didn t eat anything/ any salad 3a. Did John eat anything/ any salad? b. If John ate anything/ any salad, I d be amazed 4a. Something/ some spider bit him in the leg b. *Anything/ any spider didn t bite him in the leg c. *Anything is annoying me d. *Anything isn t annoying me e. John denied he had seen any of the accused f. *John denied any of the accusations 5a. The fact that he has come won t change anything b. Nothing will change anything c. *The fact that he hasn t come will change anything d. *That nothing has happened will change anything 6. I don t think he has eaten anything 2

3 7. P Det NP T NegP the N P will Neg VP fact not V NP that D T change anything he T V has come 8. P Det NP T VP the N P will V NP fact change anything that D T he T NegP has Neg V not come 13a. John only watches football (he doesn t play it) b. John only watches football (not cricket) 14a. Only John watches football (not Bill) b. John only, watches football (not Bill) 15. Billy tai zukkau zaa3 Billy watch football zaa3 16a. Only Billy watches football (not Peter) b. Billy only watches football (he doesn t play it) c. Billy only watches football (not cricket) 3

4 17. P 18a. zukkau-le1, Billy tai t zaa3 b. Football, only Billy watches c. Football, Billy only watches Billy T VP zaa3 d. #Only football does Billy watch V tai DP zukkau 19. TopP Top P zukkau-le1 Billy T VP zaa3 V DP tai t References Baker, M. (2001) The Atoms of Language: The Mind s Hidden Rules of Grammar. Oxford, OUP. Bloomfield, L. (1935) Language. Allen & Unwin, London. halmers, A.F. ( ) What is this Thing called Science? ambridge, Hackett Publishing. homsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. ambridge MA, MIT Press. homsky, N. (1986) Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use. New York, Praeger. homsky, N. (1994) "homsky, Noam", in Guttenplan, S. (ed) A ompanion to the Philosophy of Mind, Blackwell, Oxford. pp homsky, N. (1995) "Language and nature". Mind, 104:1-61. homsky, N. (2000) New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. ambridge, UP. Furlow, B. (2001) The making of a mind. New Scientist 2300:38-41 ( ). Hempel,. (1966) The Philosophy of Natural Science. Englewood liffs, N.J., Prentice Hall. Kiguchi, H. & R. Thornton (2004) Binding principles and AD constructions in child grammars. Syntax 7: Kuhn, T.S. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. hicago, University of hicago Press. Lakatos, I. (1970) Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (eds) riticism and the Growth of Knowledge. ambridge, UP pp Law, A. (2004) Sentence-final Focus particles in antonese. PhD thesis, University ollege London. Moore, J. & M. Polinsky (eds) (2003) The Nature of Explanation in Linguistic Theory. Stanford A, SLI. Smith, N.V. (1989) The Twitter Machine: Reflections on Language. Oxford, Blackwell. Smith, N.V. (1999/2004) homsky: Ideas and Ideals. ambridge, UP. Smith, N.V. (2002) Language, Bananas and Bonobos. Oxford, Blackwell. Smith, N.V. (2005) Language, Frogs and Savants. Oxford, Blackwell. Wolpert, L. (1992) The Unnatural Nature of Science. London, Faber & Faber. Essay subjects: 1. What is meant by a law in science? Are there any laws in linguistics? If there are, give examples; if there are not, explain why not. 2. Take any claim from the history of linguistics and show how its falsification has led to new insight 4

5 or understanding. NVS