1 / 67

A Scientific Study of the Language Faculty: a proposal and illustration

A Scientific Study of the Language Faculty: a proposal and illustration. Hajime Hoji University of Southern California 4/25/2010. Outline. 1. Introduction: the general scientific method and a study of the language faculty 2. The language faculty and the Computational System

mserrano
Download Presentation

A Scientific Study of the Language Faculty: a proposal and illustration

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Scientific Study of the Language Faculty: a proposal and illustration Hajime Hoji University of Southern California 4/25/2010

  2. Outline 1. Introduction: the general scientific method and a study of the language faculty 2. The language faculty and the Computational System 3. The model of judgment making (as a special case of the model of comprehension) 4. Confirmed schematic asymmetries 5. Consequences 6. Illustration 7. Concluding remarks

  3. 1. Introduction • Scientific knowledge gets accumulated by focusing on reproducible phenomena and analyzing them quantitatively. • The generative school of linguistics is claimed to be a scientific study of the language faculty.

  4. But in what sense? • How can the language faculty be studied scientifically? • What should count as reproducible phenomena in the study of the language faculty? • How could they be analyzed qualitatively? • The work presented here (along with the Ueyama presentation) is an attempt to answer those question.

  5. The general scientific method • Guess — Computing Consequences — Compare with Experiment (as Feynman (1965/94: 150-1) puts it)

  6. Main Claims • The general scientific method can be applied to the study of the language faculty. • Reproducible phenomena in the study of the language faculty: confirmed schematic asymmetries • The quantitative understanding in the study of the language faculty is most crucially about a contrast between zero vs. non-zero.

  7. 2. The language faculty and the Computational System • Minimally, the language faculty must relate 'sounds' and 'meanings'. • A fundamental hypothesis in generative grammar is the existence of the Computational System at the center of the language faculty.

  8. The Computational System (as put forth in Chomsky 1993)

  9. Mental Lexicon Computational System The core elements of the language faculty

  10. Japanese English Mental Lexicon (J) Mental Lexicon (E) Computational System Computational System The core elements of the language faculty of speakers of Japanese and English

  11. Predictions Hypotheses The researcher looking into her/his own mind Mental Lexicon (L) Computational System

  12. The researcher trying to go through the "thick barriers" to get to the Computational System Barriers Barriers Computational System Barriers

  13. You must wonder ... How do researchers try to discover properties of the Computational System?

  14. Hypothesis Formation and Testing Predictions by Experiments

  15. You must still wonder ... • But how? • What kind of predictions do you make? • How are those predictions testable? • How can they be disconfirmed (or confirmed)? • How do you conduct “experiments”? • How do you evaluate the result of an experiment?

  16. What are the predictions about? • They are about informants’ judgments on the acceptability of a sentences under a specified interpretation.

  17. 註: The Model of Prediction Making • To illustrate more fully what language-faculty scientists do, it would be necessary to spell out how predictions are made. • But there is not time for that in this presentation. • Please email me if you are interested.

  18. The model of Computational System (repeated)

  19. Embedding the Computational System in the model of judgment making (I) • γ(a, b): an intuition that two linguistic expressions a and b are related in a particular manner • α: presented sentence • β: the informant judgment on the acceptability of α under γ (a, b)

  20. Embedding the Computational System in the model of judgment making (II)

  21. EPSA Evaluation of Predicted Schematic Asymmetries • Predicted • Schematic • Asymmetries

  22. Predictions • *Schema-based prediction: Informants judge any*Example conforming to a *Schema to be completely unacceptable under interpretation γ(a, b). • An okSchema-based prediction: Informants judge okExamples conforming to an okSchema to be acceptable (to varying degrees) under interpretation γ(a, b).

  23. Disconfirmability and confirmability • A *Schema-based prediction: • Can be disconfirmed but cannot be confirmed. • An okSchema-based prediction: • Can be confirmed but cannot be disconfirmed.

  24. Confirmed Schematic Asymmetries • A confirmed schematic asymmetry obtains if and only if (i) the *Schema-based prediction has survived a rigorous disconfirmation attempt, and (ii) the corresponding okSchema-based predictions have been confirmed.

  25. A Predicted Schematic Asymmetry • Experiment 1 a. okSchema: NP1-ga so-NP-no N-o V (Under BVA(NP1, so-NP)) b. *Schema: NP1-ga a-NP-no N-o V (Under BVA(NP1, a-NP)) c. okSchema: NP1-ga a-NP-no N-o V (Under the interpretation that a-NP is intended to refer to something/someone specific)

  26. An initial characterization of BVA(A, B)(BVA: Bound Variable Anaphora) a. A is not singular-denoting; i.e., either there are two or more individuals or entities that are 'expressed' by A or there is no individual or entity expressed by A. b. B is singular-denoting. • B does not refer to a particular individual or entity. d. B is understood to 'express the same thing' as A is understood to express; i.e., the value of B co-varies with that of A.

  27. A necessary condition for BVA(A, B) Intuition BVA(A, B) arises only if: • What corresponds to B is specified in the mental lexicon as not inherently referential.

  28. あ vs.そ: a necessary condition for BVA(A, B) Intuition BVA(A, B) arises only if: • What corresponds to B is specified in the mental lexicon as not inherently referential. Lexical hypotheses (J): あ-NPs are specified as inherently referential while そ-NPs are not.

  29. A Predicted Schematic Asymmetry • Experiment 1 a. okSchema: NP1-ga so-NP-no N-o V (Under BVA(NP1, so-NP)) b. *Schema: NP1-ga a-NP-no N-o V (Under BVA(NP1, a-NP)) c. okSchema: NP1-ga a-NP-no N-o V (Under the interpretation that a-NP is intended to refer to something/someone specific)

  30. On-site Experiment 1 • （「あそこ」はどこか特定の機関を指す解釈 で。 )2割以上の地方自治体が[あそこを批判した雑誌記者]に連絡を取った。 • （ 「2割以上の地方自治体」と「そこ」の連動読みで。すなわち、「自分のところを批判した雑誌記者に連絡を取ったということが2割以上の地方自治体に当てはまる」という意味で)2割以上の地方自治体が[そこを批判した雑誌記者]に連絡を取った。 • （ 「2割以上の地方自治体」と「あそこ」の連動読みで。すなわち、「自分のところを批判した雑誌記者に連絡を取ったということが2割以上の地方自治体に当てはまる」という意味で)2割以上の地方自治体が[あそこを批判した雑誌記者]に連絡を取った。 okExample okExample *Example

  31. Results: Experiment 1 • 2 sets of 3 schemata, 12 examples in total. • Example #3 of On-site Experiment 1 corresponds to Schema 2B. • Of the 28 informants, 13 are "linguistically informed," and 15 are "linguistically naïve."

  32. Classifying informants as “linguistically informed" or "linguistically naïve" • Informants are asked whether they understand (i) "bound variable anaphora" or "bound readings" and (ii) "A takes wide scope over B" as they are used in linguistic discussion. • If they state that they understand at least (i) or (ii), they are "classified" as "linguistically informed" for the purpose of the discussion here; otherwise, they are classified as “linguistically naïve.”

  33. Resourcefulness Issues (1) a. Attentiveness b. Patience (2) a. Structural resourcefulness b. Contextual resourcefulness

  34. Instructions affecting informant judgments • How informant judgments can be affected by the “instructions” • Instructions I: 以下の例文が、（カッコ内に指定されている意味で）どうしても許せない場合には「×」を、一応許せる場合には「○」を選んでください。 (「少なくとも三つ以上の球団」と「あそこ」の連動読みで。 すなわち、自分ところの打撃コーチを批判したということが少なくとも三つ以上の球団に当てはまる」という意味で。 )少なく とも三つ以上の球団があそこの打撃コーチを批判した。 • Instructions II: カッコ内に指定されている状況を以下の文で表すことが出来ますか？どうしても表すことが出来ない場合には「×」を、表すことが出来る場合には「○」を、以 下の一組の例文を見比べた上で、選んでください。良く分からない場合は答えずに次に進んで下さい。 (「阪神が阪神の打撃コーチを批判し、広島が広島の打撃コーチを批判し、そして横浜が横浜の打撃コーチを批 判した」という状況)三つの球団があそこの打撃コーチを批判した。

  35. 5. Consequences (= Consequences of adopting Chomsky’s (1993) model of the Computational System) • Reproducible phenomena that we should aspire to establish in the study of the language faculty is what will be referred to as confirmed schematic asymmetries. • The quantitative understanding in the study of the language faculty is most crucially about a contrast between zero vs. non-zero.

  36. 6. Illustration • Experiment 1 あ vs. そ • Experiment 2 The singular-denoting nature of そいつ(and そこ ）

  37. Results: Experiment 2 • 2 sets of 3 schemata, 12 examples in total. • Example #3 of On-site Experiment 2 corresponds to Schema 2B. • Of the 20 informants, 14 are "linguistically informed," and 8 are "linguistically naïve."

  38. On-Site Experiment 3 • (「ジョンがビルを推薦してビルがジョンを 推薦した」の意味で)先生は [ジョンとビルがなぜお互いを推薦したのか] 全く分からなかった。 • (「彼ら」と「ジョンとビル」が同じ人を指 しているとして)ジョンとビルは [先生がなぜ彼らを推薦したのか] 全く分からなかった。 • (「ジョンは [先生がなぜビルを推薦したのか] わからなくて、ビルは [先生がなぜジョンを推薦したのか] わからなかった」の意味で)ジョ ンとビルは [先生がなぜお互いを推薦したのか] 全く分からなかった。 okExample okExample *Example

  39. Results: Experiment 3 • 2 sets of 3 schemata, 12 examples in total. • Example #3 of On-site Experiment 3 corresponds to Schema 2B. • Of the 31 informants, 12 are linguistically naïve and 19 are linguistically "informed."

  40. Lexical conditions and structural conditions • Lexical conditions for BVA(a, b) are most likely language-specific. • The distinction between あ and そ is surely language specific. • Structural conditions for BVA(a, b) are most likely universal. • Let us see a glimpse of that.

  41. On-Site Experiment 4 • (「55%以上のNP」と「そこ」の連動読 みで。すなわち、「自分のところの職員を新聞紙上で批判した地方自治体が地方自治体全体の55%以上である」という意味で)55%以上の地方自治体がそこの職員を新聞紙上で批判した。 • (「55%以上のNP」と「そこ」の連動読 みで。すなわち、「自分のところの職員に新聞紙上で批判された地方自治体が地方自治体全体の55%以上である」という意味で)そこの職員が55%以上の地方自治体を新聞紙上で批判した。 • (「そこ」が先行文脈で既出の「財務省」を 指す解釈で)そこの職員が55%以上の地方自治体を新聞紙上で批判した。 okExample *Example okExample

  42. Results: Experiment 4 • 3 sets of 3 schemata, 18 examples in total. • Example #2 of On-site Experiment 4 corresponds to Schema 1B.

  43. Precedence? • (「55%以上のNP」と「そこ」の連動読 みで。すなわち、「自分のところの職員を新聞紙上で批判した地方自治体が地方自治体全体の55%以上である」という意味で)55%以上の地方自治体がそこの職員を新聞紙上で批判した。 • (「55%以上のNP」と「そこ」の連動読 みで。すなわち、「自分のところの職員に新聞紙上で批判された地方自治体が地方自治体全体の55%以上である」という意味で)そこの職員が55%以上の地方自治体を新聞紙上で批判した。 • Is the contrast due to the precedence relation between 55% 以上の地方自治体and そこ? • No. okExample *Example

  44. On-Site Experiment 5 • (「55%以上のNP」と「そこ」の連動読 みで。すなわち、「自分のところの職員に新聞紙上で批判された地方自治体が地方自治体全体の55%以上である」という意味で)そこの職員が55%以上の地方自治体を新聞紙上で批判した。 • (「そこ」が財務省を指す解釈で)そこの職員が55%以上の地方自治体を新聞紙上で批判した。 • (「55%以上のNP」と「そこ」の連動読 みで。すなわち、「自分のところの職員を新聞紙上で批判した地方自治体が地方自治体全体の55%以上である」という意味で)そこの職員を55%以上の地方自治体が新聞紙上で批判した。 *Example okExample okExample

  45. Results: Experiment 5 • 2 sets of 3 schemata, 12 examples in total. • Example #1, #2, and #3 of On-site Experiment 5 correspond to Schema 1B, 1C, and 1A, respectively.

  46. What is the account? • The structural condition in question(which is part of the Computational System and hence universal) applies at an abstract level of representation (LF in the model of the Computational System discussed above).

  47. Various other cases of BVA (A, B) • A: かなりの数のN, NPさえ、少なくとも＃割の、#-clの、すべての、Nが ... #-cl, NPしか、etc. (e.g., かなりの数の会社、トヨタさえ、少なくとも二割の地方自治体、すくなくとも二割以上の地方自治体、５人の学生、三つの会社、すべての大学、哲学者が昨日三人、哲学者が昨日少なくとも三人以上、巨人しか、どの球団も） • B:　そこ、そいつ、　その会社、その学生、　その球団、etc. • Experiments have been conducted to see if we obtain confirmed schematic asymmetries with a various choice of A and B for BVA(A, B)

  48. What have we found out from the experiments with such instances of BVA(A, B) ? • Quite promising. • But I would need a great deal more time to go over the details, unfortunately.

  49. Two Research Heuristics • Maximize testability. • Maximize our chances of learning from errors. • Consequence: Identify what works best—for the purpose of obtaining a confirmed schematic asymmetries—as A and B of BVA(A, B) in simple cases and use them in less simple cases. • There are other consequences of a similar nature with regard to (i) other aspects of experiments and (ii) informant resourcefulness.

  50. 7. Concluding remarks The general scientific method can be applied to the study of the language faculty. Reproducible phenomena that we should aspire to establish in the study of the language faculty is what will be referred to as confirmed schematic asymmetries. The quantitative understanding in the study of the language faculty is most crucially about a contrast between zero vs. non-zero. In order to be able to obtain confirmed schematic asymmetries, we must first focus on the properties of the Computational System.

More Related