FUNKNET] analysis: unhappiness

Mark P. Line mark at polymathix.com
Mon Sep 13 12:46:45 UTC 2010


Aya --

A. Katz wrote:
> Mark,
>
> Sorry, but "eating" is not a tool. It's a biological process.
>
> Eating cannot occur outside the biological context. A human being can
> avoid eating, but if so he starves. Feral children do not speak, but
> they eat, like everyone else, or they die. Eating does not have to be
> taught, there is no critical age of acquisition and it is not uniquely an
> artefact of human culture. If you are an animal, you eat. Eating cannot
> survive the death of the eater.
>
> Language can.

I would say that not language, but the artifacts of language (texts, audio
recordings) can survive the people who created them, because I try very
hard not to reify the artifacts of language as "language".

The (usually communicative) process I refer to as language cannot exist
independently of its embodiment. That said, I don't care if the embodiment
is human, computer, cetacean or non-human primate.


-- Mark

Mark P. Line


> On Sun, 12 Sep 2010, Mark P. Line wrote:
>
>> Aya --
>>
>> You said: "Other tools can be studied separately from the people who use
>> them or created them. Why not language?"
>>
>> Although language can certainly be considered a tool, I think it's
>> unlike
>> other tools in several very significant respects.
>>
>> 1. Although we're not born with language, we can't avoid (pathologies
>> excluded) acquiring it unless we're not exposed to it. To that extent,
>> language is a biological phenomenon. A prototypical tool is not a
>> biological phenomenon, so I'm not sure how valid any conclusions might
>> be
>> that are drawn from a premise of language-as-tool.
>>
>> 2. A tool is as a tool does: Anything is a tool that is being used as a
>> tool, including dead wombats, broken screwdrivers or decks of playing
>> cards. (Completing the imagined scenarios is left as an exercise for the
>> reader...) So saying that language is a tool is only saying that
>> language
>> is used as a tool. Quite a few conclusions can be and have been drawn
>> from
>> the fact that language is used as a tool, but I would have to be
>> convinced
>> in detail that almost everything worth knowing about language is
>> dependent
>> on the premise of language-as-tool.
>>
>> 3. If language is a "tool" for (say) communicating ideas, then eating is
>> a
>> "tool" for reducing hunger. In both cases, I worry about the tool
>> metaphor
>> being stretched so far from the prototype that we're left with an
>> out-and-out category fallacy.
>>
>> 4. More prototypical tools can be studied separately from those who use
>> or
>> create them because those tools are easily observed separately from
>> those
>> who use or create them. I don't think the same thing can be said of
>> language -- very little about language can be observed apart from its
>> use,
>> so very little about language can be observed apart from its user(s).
>>
>> 5. Any proposal to study something as complex as language separately
>> from
>> its embodiment is suspicious to me, smacking of reductionism --
>> something
>> up with which linguistics has had to put a tad much. Anything that puts
>> language back into its human context would be a step forward.
>>
>>
>> -- Mark
>>
>> Mark P. Line
>>
>>
>>
>> A. Katz wrote:
>>> Tom,
>>>
>>> I understand the uncomfortable association with Chomsky that speaking
>>> of
>>> language apart from people can have. Competence versus performance, the
>>> way Chomsky used those terms, never made sense. But that's precisely
>>> because
>>> he associated "competence" with the brain and suggested that it was
>>> hard
>>> wired there -- when there was never any evidence of that.
>>>
>>> However, if we don't distinguish language from humans, and language
>>> processing from language data, then how are we going to judge
>>> artificial
>>> language-using devices as to their efficacy at producing and
>>> interpreting
>>> language? How are we going to determine whether and to what extent a
>>> non-human has acquired language?
>>>
>>> We aren't born with it. We don't embody it. It's a tool that we use to
>>> communicate. Other tools can be studied separately from the people who
>>> use
>>> them or created them. Why not language?
>>>
>>> --Aya
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 12 Sep 2010, Tom Givon wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wonder whether asking "how does language work?" is really a
>>>> meaningful
>>>> question without  asking "how does the language user work?"  One of
>>>> the
>>>> worst
>>>> legacies good ol' Noam stuck us with is his (really, Saussure's)
>>>> distinction
>>>> of competence ("language", "knowledge") vs. performance ("language
>>>> user",
>>>> "processing"). It purported to limit linguists to the armchair methods
>>>> that
>>>> study competence, and relegated to psychology the quantified,
>>>> distributional/variationist methods that study behavior, processing
>>>> and
>>>> on-line communication. The first breach in this artificial
>>>> methodological
>>>> wall occurred, leastwise for some of us, when we discovered the
>>>> intermediate
>>>> method of quantified studies of text, interaction, and conversation.
>>>> As
>>>> an
>>>> ex-biologist, I am forever puzzled by the methodological purism we
>>>> sill
>>>> seem
>>>> to embrace in linguistics, in the face of the manifest complexity and
>>>> connectivity of language (mind, brain, culture, sociality, evolution,
>>>> etc.).
>>>> In biology, another extremely complex science with multiple
>>>> connections
>>>> (chemistry, geology, paleontology, behavior, sociality, economics,
>>>> evolution,
>>>> etc.), ANY method is welcome so long as it does the job of furthering
>>>> our
>>>> understanding. And by understanding we mean ever-wider circles of
>>>> connectivity.
>>>>
>>>> Best,  TG
>>>> ================
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A. Katz wrote:
>>>>> Chris,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for addressing this question. I understand that many, many
>>>>> linguists
>>>>> are quite properly and approriately interested in this ultimate
>>>>> question:
>>>>> "How does the language user work?" (I am also intetested in this
>>>>> question
>>>>> some of the time.)
>>>>>
>>>>> My point is that "how does language work?" is also a valid question,
>>>>> and a
>>>>> central one to the field of linguistics. These two questions are not
>>>>> at
>>>>> all
>>>>> the same.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me be very explicit: My aim is to separate out the "human" from
>>>>> the
>>>>> "language". There are many good reasons to do so. For anyone working
>>>>> in
>>>>> computerized language processing or in non-human language studies,
>>>>> this
>>>>> is
>>>>> a significant point.
>>>>>
>>>>> It does not matter if a computerized language processing system even
>>>>> remotely simulates what humans do with language in their brains. It
>>>>> does
>>>>> matter whether it comes up with comparable or indistinguishable
>>>>> results.
>>>>>
>>>>> It does not matter whether a parrot, a dolphin or a chimpanzee is
>>>>> doing
>>>>> the
>>>>> same things inside the same modules in his brain as a human does. It
>>>>> does
>>>>> matter if the results are functionally equivalent.
>>>>>
>>>>> We need to make that distinction, between humans and their language,
>>>>> or
>>>>> we
>>>>> will be caught inside a circular definition with no way to break out
>>>>> or
>>>>> to
>>>>> prove anything, not about others and not about ourselves!
>>>>>
>>>>>    --Aya
>>>>>
>>>>> http://hubpages.com/hub/What-Constitutes-Proof-in-Ape-Language-Studies
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 12 Sep 2010, Chris Butler wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Aya, I think two different things are getting a bit mixed up here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't for a moment dispute that expressions are often susceptible
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> multiple interpretations, that these interpretations are guided by
>>>>>> all
>>>>>> kinds of contextual information, or that different people, or even
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> same person at different times, may end up selecting differently
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> various interpretations. Your example 'Open happiness' in another
>>>>>> contribution to this thread illustrates these points very well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My point, though, is that each of these different interpretations,
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> well
>>>>>> as the selection of one (or more) as more likely in a particular
>>>>>> context,
>>>>>> is achieved through mechanisms in the interpreter's brain which
>>>>>> evolved in
>>>>>> the course of the phylogenetic development of language in the human
>>>>>> species, and developed ontogenetically in that particular
>>>>>> interpreter's
>>>>>> brain. It is surely likely that those mechanisms are highly similar
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> different human beings, even though there may be differences in the
>>>>>> detailed wiring in different brains. What I'm saying is that in
>>>>>> order
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> answer the question 'How do we communicate using language?' or, if
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> prefer, 'How does the language user work?', we need to investigate
>>>>>> what
>>>>>> those mechanisms are, and this is what psycholinguists can help us
>>>>>> with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In particular, as linguists, we are interested (well, some of us
>>>>>> are,
>>>>>> though clearly not all) in whether the constructs we posit in our
>>>>>> theories
>>>>>> of language have psychological validity in the sense that they
>>>>>> correspond
>>>>>> to ways in which aspects of language are represented in the brain.
>>>>>> [As
>>>>>> an
>>>>>> aside, I do realise that there are linguists who strenuously resist
>>>>>> what
>>>>>> they see as a misguided emphasis on mental representation in the
>>>>>> work
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> cognitive scientists, but it seems clear that language must be
>>>>>> represented
>>>>>> in some way in the brain in order that we can engage in the
>>>>>> sociosemiotic
>>>>>> acts of meaning making which are the primary focus for many of these
>>>>>> critics.] Taking your 'Open happiness' examples again, I think we
>>>>>> need
>>>>>> answers to questions such as: What kind of representation does the
>>>>>> human
>>>>>> language processing system have for 'open' and for 'happiness'? Are
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> phonological, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic (for those who
>>>>>> distinguish
>>>>>> the semantic from the pragmatic) properties of these items (and we
>>>>>> might
>>>>>> want to add 'for this particular interpreter', though there must be
>>>>>> similarities across interpreters for communication to be possible)
>>>>>> represented in the same or different ways, in the same or different
>>>>>> locations (or sets of distributed locations)? Indeed, are we right
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> thinking that these familiar levels of linguistic description must
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> differentiated, as such, in the human language processing system?
>>>>>> Does
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> representation for 'open' distinguish between what we call verbal
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> adjectival uses of this item, and if so how? Or are syntactic
>>>>>> analyses
>>>>>> computed on the fly, using semantic and contextual clues, rather
>>>>>> than
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> neural equivalent of pigeon holes corresponding to verbs and
>>>>>> adjectives?
>>>>>> Is 'happiness' represented as 'happy + ness', or in its entirety, or
>>>>>> both?
>>>>>> All these questions, and many many more, are relevant to the
>>>>>> construction
>>>>>> of a model of language which reflects how language users communicate
>>>>>> (as,
>>>>>> of course, are a whole set of other questions about the
>>>>>> sociocultural
>>>>>> aspects of communication).  I am not a psycholinguist, but my all
>>>>>> too
>>>>>> superficial reading in the area suggests that psycholinguists have
>>>>>> gone
>>>>>> some of the way towards answering some of the questions we might
>>>>>> want
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> ask, but that there is still a long way to go.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chris
>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> From: "A. Katz" <amnfn at well.com>
>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 3:18 PM
>>>>>> To: "Chris Butler" <cbutler at ntlworld.com>
>>>>>> Cc: "FUNKNET" <funknet at mailman.rice.edu>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] FUNKNET] analysis: unhappiness
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem is that once we achieve the psycholinguistic goal and
>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>> is happening in each person's head, and we see that conflicting
>>>>>>> analyses
>>>>>>> are the norm, rather than the exception, among normal language
>>>>>>> speakers,
>>>>>>> then we will realize that the way language works to transmit
>>>>>>> information
>>>>>>> is despite individual differences and not because of uniform
>>>>>>> processing
>>>>>>> strategies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even when all are agreed as to the meaning of an utterance, they do
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> process it the same way. Which means that processing is seocndary
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> information transmission.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   --Aya
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 11 Sep 2010, Chris Butler wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dick's comment that "this discussion raises the really fundamental
>>>>>>>> question of what kind of thing we think language is: social or
>>>>>>>> individual" is, it seems to me, an important one, particularly for
>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>> of us who are committed functionalists. My own view is that a
>>>>>>>> truly
>>>>>>>> functional model of language would be one which aims to account
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>> human beings communicate using language, or in other words tries
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> answer the question which was posed by Simon Dik a long time ago
>>>>>>>> now,
>>>>>>>> but which was not tackled head-on in his own work: "How does the
>>>>>>>> natural
>>>>>>>> language user work?' In trying to answer this question we need to
>>>>>>>> accept
>>>>>>>> that language is BOTH social AND individual, and we need to
>>>>>>>> explore
>>>>>>>> both
>>>>>>>> aspects to get as complete a picture as possible of how we
>>>>>>>> communicate
>>>>>>>> using language. We need to know BOTH how people create and respond
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> meanings and express those meanings in forms during social
>>>>>>>> interaction
>>>>>>>> AND the mechanisms which operate in the brains of individuals in
>>>>>>>> order
>>>>>>>> to make such interaction possible. Both are important parts of the
>>>>>>>> answer to the question 'How do we communicate using language?',
>>>>>>>> though
>>>>>>>> this particular thread of the Funknet discussion has concentrated
>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>> on the second aspect, and so will I.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This doesn't mean that all the work linguists have done on
>>>>>>>> "exploring
>>>>>>>> the structure of a language so that I can understand how all the
>>>>>>>> bits
>>>>>>>> fit together" and "exploring the connections between items", as
>>>>>>>> Dick
>>>>>>>> puts it, is useless - far from it. After all, the hypotheses that
>>>>>>>> psycholinguists test are based on ideas about what languages are
>>>>>>>> like.
>>>>>>>> But it does mean, in my view, that ultimately we need to get
>>>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>>>> that the constructs and analyses we propose are ones that are at
>>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>> consistent with what we know of the  processes which go on when we
>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>> language. So I am with Matthew when he says that for him, "the
>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>> sense in which an analysis can be "the correct analysis" is in
>>>>>>>> terms
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> what is inside of people's heads". Of course, this doesn't imply
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> linguists should just give up their jobs until such time as we
>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>> everything there is to know about language processing. But it does
>>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>>> that we need to collaborate with psycholinguists, psychologists
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> neurologists, as has also been pointed out by linguists such as
>>>>>>>> Ray
>>>>>>>> Jackendoff, Asif Agha, Ewa Dabrowska and Jan Nuyts. [We also need
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> collaborate much more with sociolinguists and sociologists, so
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>> can get a better handle on the sociocultural aspects of how we
>>>>>>>> communicate.]  And it also means that psycholinguists, for their
>>>>>>>> part,
>>>>>>>> need whenever possible to follow up tightly controlled lab
>>>>>>>> experiments
>>>>>>>> with studies under more naturalistic conditions, to avoid the
>>>>>>>> criticism
>>>>>>>> that what happens in artifical lab situations may not happen in
>>>>>>>> natural
>>>>>>>> communicative conditions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I also agree with Dick when he says that "the differences between
>>>>>>>> individuals really matter", and with Lise when she points out that
>>>>>>>> "we
>>>>>>>> must also be careful not to idealize "what's in people's heads" as
>>>>>>>> if it
>>>>>>>> were a single coherent construct that we are trying to discover".
>>>>>>>> However, there are surely processing mechanisms which are common
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>> language users by virtue of the evolution of the language faculty
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> which constitute the "general processes" which Dick says
>>>>>>>> psycholinguists
>>>>>>>> are interested in.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On the issue of quantitative methodology, I'm sympathetic in
>>>>>>>> general
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> Ted and Ev's views, though it does seem sensible to prioritise
>>>>>>>> cases
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> terms of a hierarchy such as Brian suggests. One thing this means
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> that we should be giving our university students of linguistics
>>>>>>>> (and
>>>>>>>> some of our linguistics lecturers!) courses in quantitative
>>>>>>>> aspects
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> linguistics that introduce them to the use of at least some of the
>>>>>>>> basic
>>>>>>>> statistical methods in language study, and I'm sure this is indeed
>>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>>> on in some enlightened places. To those who suspect this can't be
>>>>>>>> done
>>>>>>>> with maths-shy students who don't initially see the need for it, I
>>>>>>>> offer
>>>>>>>> my own experience, over quite a long period, of teaching such
>>>>>>>> courses to
>>>>>>>> people with little or no prior experience in quantitative
>>>>>>>> techniques.
>>>>>>>> For some years in the 1990s, I taught such courses to all
>>>>>>>> linguistics
>>>>>>>> students in an institution where we had many mature students who
>>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>>> come into university level studies with non-standard
>>>>>>>> qualifications,
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> were not well equipped for courses of this kind by their previous
>>>>>>>> experience. I'm glad to say that teaching the subject from their
>>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>> perspective as language students rather than that of the
>>>>>>>> statistician,
>>>>>>>> and explaining the reasons for doing things in particular ways
>>>>>>>> rather
>>>>>>>> than just presenting formulae, paid off in the end, so that most
>>>>>>>> students were able to appreciate the relevance of these courses
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> turn in very creditable projects showing an understanding of
>>>>>>>> research
>>>>>>>> design and competence in the use of a range of basic statistical
>>>>>>>> techniques. And I still find that bright graduate students respond
>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>> to similar courses which incorporate some of the rather more
>>>>>>>> advanced
>>>>>>>> techniques needed for many real research projects in various areas
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> linguistics. But I may well be out of date with what is now
>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>> happening in our fine institutions of higher education!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Chris Butler
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- Mark
>>
>> Mark P. Line
>> Bartlesville, OK
>>
>>
>
>


-- Mark

Mark P. Line
Bartlesville, OK



More information about the Funknet mailing list