Language Innateness - Jan-Wouter Zwart vs. Dan Everett

[@markh7915]

Dan argues persuasively and clearly that the burden of responsibility lies on the hypothesis of language innateness. The debate positions break down when we focus in on definitions of innateness and the origins of universals. But the salient point was that Chomsky’s theory either has no evidence or has no meaningful implications. In that, I saw little to refute from this debate. I also believe Dan deserves credit for doing what good scientists do: asserting a position regardless of the level of opposition encountered, and standing on solid rational argumentation. He is willing to speak pointedly and clearly even if his audience or interlocutor don’t agree. He has been an entry point for me to understand this linguistic debate, and for that I thank him.

[@JCO2002]

I really have no idea what they're talking about, but the discussion is very interesting.

[@kenupton8623]

Basically, what I got was: Everett doesn't believe language is innate because every region of the brain found with an association to language ends up being not specific to language, but also controls other things. And when some animals are tested they find that they also use these neurological regions.

[@squatch545]

That's not what he said. You just took his first point. He had 4 points.

[@gyorkshire257]

at 24:20 is the key to the whole question. Either Chomsky's claim has no evidence, or it has no content.

[@B41988]

[31:28] "I don't have a lot to add. I think it's a difficult question, and I think Dan said some good things about it." Well... good to know the obvious is intact. Ringing in my ears: "theoretical" vs "practical application"--period. Referring to meaning well beyond this venue and this discussion. Even in the present-day cluster-"F" that is the world of academia's descent into the sociopolitical realm. The civilized wilds of the Amazon must sound downright soothing, right about now.

[@kipstanswjego6678]

I agree with one of the comments below that it's a shame we cannot see Prof. Zwart's slides, or at least not clearly. For that reason, I tried to search for Prof. Zwart's work on KZbin but found nothing. If anyone has something, like this lecture, for instance, please reply. I don't care if it's not in English. If he has given a different talk on this topic, that's fine, too.

[@justLivyouknow]

so sad we can´t see the whole slideshow

[@ramzikawa734]

That feeling when the person arguing your side in a debate is a terrible debater.

[@annaclarafenyo8185]

That's because your side is objectively wrong, it's not his fault.

[@squatch545]

Chomsky has left the chat.

[@seanvassar1117]

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

[@GraemeMarkNI]

What did they disagree about exactly? 😅

[@MrJustSomeGuy87]

13:30 wow, I’ve never heard someone so brazenly commit the naturalistic fallacy. He is literally quoting the fallacy: “if it’s natural it’s good”

[@JSwift-jq3wn]

First and foremost you must define what language is, with no room for further discussion or additional arguments.

[@senstrop]

uhh uhh uhh ehh ehhh ughhh ughh

[@juliasmith5267]

Wonderful job. 💕

[@accordingToSpecs]

Everett is testing the audience several times, by using wit, to gage their understanding of what he's saying. The most obvious joke is at 25:00 though. Shame we can't really hear the audience's response. (Dutch oven = een scheet onder het dekbed.)

[@jabrown]

That is a figurative meaning. "Dutch oven" also has a literal meaning, a thick-walled cast-iron cooking pot, from which the figurative meaning is derived.

[@fasrart]

The moderator's laugh is contagious

[@renateba4473]

alguem pode traduzir para o portugues, please

[@d.m.collins1501]

Whaaat? So saying "Go! Go! Go! Go!" is recursion? I think that's just emphasis.

[@jabrown]

It's curious because in previous publications, Everett himself says that iteration ISN'T recursion.

[@TheSpectatorProject]

merge [go,go], merge [go[go,go]], merge [go[go,go,go] and so on.

[@valeriobertoncello1809]

@@jabrown In that moment of the debate Everett repeats multiple times that "there are many definitions of recursion". He then uses the one definition that classifies iteration itself as a kind of recursion to show the inconsistencies of generative linguists. In fact, the only way to argue against the lack of recursion in the Piraha language is to call iteration "just another kind of recursion". But if you allow this, then you are also allowing dog's speech to be considered recursive! And thus recursion doesn't have anything to do with human behaviour per se.

[@gyorkshire257]

@@valeriobertoncello1809 I fail to see the big deal about recursion, it is simply the linguistic expression of multiple facets of the same situation. It's something you would expect language as technology to generally have, and something you would expect UG to have. But its universality doesn't prove UG, and its absence doesn't disprove it. To be fair though, nothing seems to disprove UG except for talking rabbits, which is why we should probably be very careful of it.

[@dancroitoru364]

This illustrates the big schism between the French structuralism (Saussure, Levi Strauss, Lacan, ...) which asserts human language is for creating human like social bonds (therefore the need to divorce the symbol from the real thing) and Anglo Saxon non Cartesian empiricism which think of language as a collection of structured signs (they may call them symbols too but they actually think they are numerically identical to the thing itself). If humans would have only been able to sophisticatedly structure signs then we'd have remained no more than highly efficient gorillas.

[@senecanzallanute4066]

No it does not illustrate that.

[@rolfskytte]

Everett all the way.

[@squatch545]

Yup, Everett destroyed Zwart.

[@d.m.collins1501]

I guess this was like half a year before Foxp2 was revealed as having a role in the genetics behind language.

[@d.m.collins1501]

Oops, no, he mentions it. I guess I agree with Everett that Foxp2 can't be the end-all-be-all of language, because Homo erectus doesn't have the same version of it and yet they clearly must have had language or at least some sort of "Me Tarzan you Jane" proto-language.

[@d.m.collins1501]

... that said, Foxp2 seems strongly linked to song birds, to whales, etc, and quite likely helps us in our multifaceted mouth sounds.

[@jabrown]

"Strongly linked" and "helps" still aren't the same as "be the end-all-be-all".

[@dinola3268]

Warum werden uns der Lichtvortrag vorenthalten? Absolute schlechte Präsentation!

[@TMuitgevers]

Chomsky hasn't been very helpfull in research on first language aquisition.

[@MrJustSomeGuy87]

@Language and Programming Channel he said Chomsky HASN’T been helpful. Did you misread him?

[@SinergiaAlUnisono]

JAJAJAJAJA the egg or the chicken "?" , the kitchen or the cook ?? jajaja , Both !!, just stop waiting resources in non sense.. : chomsky or piaget, ??? black or white ??? , dark matter or doesn't matter jajaja, cheersté

[@carriersailor2474]

Dan's clearly wrong in not accepting the specific, and necessarily properly timed, biological aspect of our brains in communication. Our kids go through a very young "babbling" phase, trying to talk, and almost all adults reflexively try to communicate with them. Any member of any race of child seems to be able to learn any language if exposed to it at a young enough age. Even learning many at once, if exposed to the several at this special time! Some parents take advantage of this to make their kid multilingual. Supporting this "special time idea," some child abuse, or inadvertent disaster cases, where kids go up to puberty with no human communication interaction - they prove to be incapable of learning! So our brains seem to go through a "try to speak and understand speech" phase, and later, to be able to transpose that taught ability to the idea of reading. But without hitting our brains with the speech at the right time - we cannot speak. So not just both nature mixed with nurture, but nurture that has to hit the nature when the natural brain is designed to get it.

[@TP-om8of]

Not sure Dan has any kids. He’s got a dog though.

[@christopheclugston]

@@TP-om8of you obviously need to do research as does the poster above you

[@MontyCantsin5]

@T P: He does have children.

[@benweb1105]

I f you like to actually learn something about language evolution, or if you like to find the 'fossils ' of human languages, than start by Learning Albanian language. Don't wast your life time confusing yourself and others. Read Petro Zheji books. "The Messianic role of Albanian language ".

[@senecanzallanute4066]

Say what?

[@benweb1105]

@@senecanzallanute4066 , that Study of Albanian language gives us Deeper Understanding of more not only Languages but about Life itself. For instance, may pseudo-scientist in linguistics are considering the "world" as a label without meaning. But in fact, the "world" itself could be further decoded and containing its own meaning. Albanian is instrumental in deciphering of all languages as it holds the keys. Which can decipher its own world but also worlds of other languages! After all, imaging an ancient language in the middle of European that not only was a Taboo for the Science, but its speakers were kept for Half a Century Isolated in a fake Pseudo-Communist Totalitarian Regime like e Prison. Why would they kept it so secrete?! The same Author has published a comparison of Albanian and Sanskrit in 2 Books. Also a book of aphorisms.

[@chomskyan4life]

​@UCx9enUkU3W9B_1C3y6Vehaw In the words of Richard Dawkins, in Brief Candle in the Dark, Everett is "cute"! I believe Kegl had an even better response. Social "science" types are so cute: Kegl, J. 2002. "Language Emergence in a Language-Ready Brain: Acquisition Issues". In Morgan, G. and Woll, B., Language Acquisition in Signed Languages. Cambridge University Press, pp. 207-254. Yang, C. D. (2002). Knowledge and learning in natural language. Oxford University Press on Demand. Hauser, M. D., Yang, C., Berwick, R. C., Tattersall, I., Ryan, M. J., Watumull, J., ... & Lewontin, R. C. (2014). The mystery of language evolution. Frontiers in psychology, 5, 401. Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?. science, 298(5598), 1569-1579. Friederici, A. D. (2011). The brain basis of language processing: from structure to function. Physiological reviews, 91(4), 1357-1392. https :// www .ling. upenn. edu /~ ycharles /pop . h t m l

[@christopheclugston]

ad hominems