generative grammar and acquisition

[Jay McClelland]

For an alternative perspective, particularly in relation to the views of 
Jackendoff, but also to the entire Chomskyian paradigm, I invite readers 
of this list to take a look at the following papers.

 -- Jay McClelland

Bybee, J. and McClelland, J. L. (2005). Alternatives to the 
combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general 
principles of human cognition. /The Linguistic Review, 22(2-4)/, 381-410.

http://psychology.stanford.edu/~jlm/papers/BybeeMcC05.pdf

McClelland, J. L. and Bybee, J. (in press). Gradience of Gradience: A 
reply to Jackendoff. /The Linguistic Review./

http://psychology.stanford.edu/~jlm/papers/McCBybeeIPRepToJkndf.pdf



Susan Foster-Cohen wrote:
> Dear all:
>
> I have just been reading Ray Jackendoff's excellent essay "Reintegrating Generative Grammar" which forms chapter 2 of his new book "Language, consciousness, culture: Essays on mental structure". May I recommend it to you all in the context of the current discussion. While there is not a vast amount in it directly on acquisition it is extremely articulate about the relationship between generative linguistics and psycholinguistics and, now, neurolinguistics/cognitive science. It is a gracious acknowledgement of the importance of Chomsky's work while at the same time articulating why so many in cognitive science and acquisition have been/are so frustrated. As always with Ray's work, it is thoughtful, articulate, a pleasure to read, and accessible. I am anticipating that the rest of the book is going to be equally relevant to our concerns.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Susan Foster-Cohen
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: info-childes at mail.talkbank.org on behalf of Matthew Saxton
> Sent: Fri 10/12/2007 8:09 PM
> To: info-childes at mail.talkbank.org
> Subject: [SPAM: 3.000] Antiques Roadshow
>  
> From an InfoCHILDES correspondent of Susanna Bartsch:
>
> "my principal business these days is antiques. If you happen to have any
> acquaintances who might be interested in purchasing, say, vintage
> costume jewelry ...... I would be very appreciative if you would put us
> in touch with each other."
>
>  
>
> I wonder, is this somehow connected with the discussion of Chomsky? On
> which subject, I've been adding lots to my stock of learning on the
> academic culture and history of child language research this past couple
> of days.
>
>  
>
> In general, I find the discussion about Chomsky's putative obsolescence
> quite depressing. Internecine struggles that have lasted for decades
> (including, for example, book-length treatments of the "Language War")
> are depressing. But more depressing is the relative lack of empirical
> maturity in the field of child language. In this, I agree with what
> Brian MacWhinney has to say (and, of course, applaud the efforts of
> CHILDES as a step in the right direction). Many studies on child
> language still have sample sizes that look derisory compared with other
> branches of the human sciences (mea culpa maxima).
>
>  
>
> It is an easy matter to demonstrate that language is fundamental to the
> human experience. It is also relatively straightforward to demonstrate
> that research on language development is vitally important. To pluck
> just two examples from the air: (1) at least 7% of children have serious
> difficulty with first language acquisition (Tomblin et al., 1997); and
> (2) 2nd language learning is a multi-billion dollar global industry. And
> so on. Why, therefore, are politicians and businesses not throwing huge
> amounts of money at us to do both basic and applied research on language
> acquisition? I think there is a connection between the culture of open
> warfare and relative lack of funding. We betray ourselves to the wider
> world as members of an academic discipline that is unhealthily
> polarised, relatively immature in its empirical base and academically
> peripheral (not quite linguistics, not quite psychology, not quite....).
> And this is the case several decades after Chomsky (and Roger Brown) got
> people interested.
>
>  
>
> But how did we get on to this? Oh yes: Robin Campbell diverted us from
> my original question about the competence-performance distinction. On
> which, I've had some very helpful and interesting replies and will, of
> course, post a summary.
>
>  
>
> Now, how does one get into the antiques business...........?
>
>  
>
> Regards,
>
>  
>
> Matthew.
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *********************************************************************
>
> Matthew Saxton MA, MSc, DPhil
>
> School of Psychology and Human Development,
>
> Institute of Education,
>
> 25 Woburn Square,
>
> London,
>
> WC1H 0AA.
>
> U.K.
>
>  
>
> Tel: +44 (0) 20 7612 6509
>
> Fax: +44 (0) 20 7612 6304
>
>  
>
> http://ioewebserver.ioe.ac.uk/ioe/cms/get.asp?cid=4578&4578_0=10248
>
> www.ioe.ac.uk <http://www.ioe.ac.uk> 
>
>  
>
>
>
>