1887
image of Proximate and ultimate explanations of individual differences in language use and language acquisition

Abstract

Abstract

I evaluate three schools in linguistics (structuralism; generative linguistics; usage based linguistics) from the perspective of Karl Popper’s critical rationalism. Theories (providing proximate explanations) may be falsified at some point in time. In contrast, metatheories, such as Darwin’s theory of evolution and the theory of Language as a Complex Adaptive System (LCAS) (providing ultimate explanations) are falsifiable , but not likely to be falsified. I then argue that LCAS provides a fruitful framework for the explanation of individual differences in language acquisition and use. Unequal frequency distributions of linguistic elements constitute a necessary characteristic of language production, in line with LCAS. However, explaining individual differences implies explaining commonalities ( ). While attributes such as people’s level of education and profession are visible in knowledge of the standard language (declarative knowledge acquired in school), they may be invisible in the spoken vernacular (linguistic cognition shared by all native speakers).

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/dujal.19027.hul
2020-04-06
2020-09-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/10.1075/dujal.19027.hul/dujal.19027.hul.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/dujal.19027.hul&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B.
    (1989) Functionalism and the Competition Model. InB. MacWhinney, & E. Bates (Eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing (pp.3–73). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bloomfield, L.
    (1935) Language. London: Allen & Unwin.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bod, R.
    (2015) Probabilistic linguistics. InB. Heine, & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (2nd ed.) (pp.663–692). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bradie, M.
    (2016) Karl Popper’s evolutionary philosophy. InJ. Shearmur, & G. Stokes (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Popper (pp.143–169). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CCO9781139046503.006
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CCO9781139046503.006 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bybee, J. L.
    (2007) Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195301571.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195301571.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bybee, J. L., & Hopper, P. J.
    (Eds.) (2001) Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.45
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45 [Google Scholar]
  7. Chomsky, N.
    (1957) Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. (1980) Rules and representations. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. 10.1017/S0140525X00001515
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00001515 [Google Scholar]
  10. (1981) Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. (2005) Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 1–22. 10.1162/0024389052993655
    https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389052993655 [Google Scholar]
  12. Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N.
    (2016) The Now-or-Never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, 1–19. 10.1017/S0140525X1500031X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X1500031X [Google Scholar]
  13. Croft, W.
    (2001) Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  14. Culicover, P. W., & Jackendoff, R.
    (2005) Simpler syntax. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271092.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271092.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  15. De Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M.
    (2005) An introduction to second language acquisition: Dynamic aspects. London, UK: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203446416
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203446416 [Google Scholar]
  16. Diessel, H.
    (2019) The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108671040
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108671040 [Google Scholar]
  17. Ellis, N. C.
    (2002) Frequency effects in language processing and acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143–88. 10.1017/S0272263102002024
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002024 [Google Scholar]
  18. Ellis, N. C., & Larsen-Freeman, D.
    (Eds.) (2009) Language as a complex adaptive system. Language Learning, 59, Supplement 1.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Goldberg, A. E.
    (2013) Constructionist approaches to language. InT. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.) Handbook of construction grammar (pp.15–31). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Han, Z.-H.
    (Ed.) (2019) Profiling learner language as a dynamic system. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Haspelmath, M.
    (submitted). Explaining grammatical coding asymmetries: Form-frequency correspondencies and predictability.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hawkins, J. A.
    (2004) Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  23. (2014) Cross-linguistic variation and efficiency. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199664993.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199664993.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hulstijn, J. H.
    (1999) Vaardigheid zonder kennis? De rol van grammaticakennis en automatisering in de verwerving van een tweede taal. [Proficiency without knowledge? The role of knowledge of grammar and automatization in the acquisition of a second language] Inaugural lecture, University of Amsterdam, 5November 1999 Amsterdam: Vossiuspers AUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (2011) Language proficiency in native and nonnative speakers: An agenda for research and suggestions for second-language assessment. Language Assessment Quarterly, 8, 229–249. 10.1080/15434303.2011.565844
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2011.565844 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2015) Language proficiency in native and non-native speakers: Theory and research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.41
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.41 [Google Scholar]
  27. (2017) Syntactic patterns in the speech of native speakers of Dutch, differing in age and level of education and profession: A pilot study exploring the size of shared language knowledge. Linguistics in Amsterdam, 10, 1, 60–90. [www.linguisticsinamsterdam.nl/home?issue=101]
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (2019) An individual-differences framework for comparing nonnative with native speakers: Perspectives from BLC Theory. Language Learning, 69, Supplement1, 157–183. 10.1111/lang.12317
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12317 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hulstijn, J. H., Ellis, R., & Eskildsen, S.
    (Eds.) (2015) Orders and sequences in the acquisition of L2 morphosyntax, 40 years on. Language Learning, 65 (special issue).
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Hyams, N. M.
    (1986) Language acquisition and the theory of parameters. Dordrecht: Reidel. 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑4638‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-4638-5 [Google Scholar]
  31. Keller, R.
    (1994) On language change: The invisible hand in language. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Kuhn, T.
    (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Larsen-Freeman, D.
    (1997) Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18, 141–165. 10.1093/applin/18.2.141
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/18.2.141 [Google Scholar]
  34. Lestrade, S.
    (2017) Unzipping Zipf’s law. PLoS ONE, 12(8), e0181987. 10.1371/journal.pone.0181987
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181987 [Google Scholar]
  35. Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. H.
    (2019) Individual differences and the ergodicity problem. Language Learning, 69, Supplement1, 184–206. 10.1111/lang.12324
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12324 [Google Scholar]
  36. MacWhinney, B.
    (2015) Introduction: Language emergence. InB. MacWhinney, & W. O’Grady (Eds.), The handbook of language emergence (pp.1–31). Chisester, UK: Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Miller, G. A.
    (2003) The cognitive revolution: A historical perspective. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7, 141–144. 10.1016/S1364‑6613(03)00029‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00029-9 [Google Scholar]
  38. Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H.
    (1960) Plans and the structure of behavior. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston. 10.1037/10039‑000
    https://doi.org/10.1037/10039-000 [Google Scholar]
  39. Mufwene, S. S., Coupé, C., & Pellegrino, F.
    (2017) Complexity in language: A multifaceted phenomenon. InS. S. Mufwene, C. Coupé, & F. Pellegrino (Eds.), Complexity in language: Developmental and evolutionary perspectives (pp.1–29). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781107294264.001
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107294264.001 [Google Scholar]
  40. Mulder, K., & Hulstijn, J. H.
    (2011) Linguistic skills of adult native speakers, as a function of age and level of education. Applied Linguistics, 32, 475–494. 10.1093/applin/amr016
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amr016 [Google Scholar]
  41. Muthukrishna, M., & Henrich, J.
    (2019) A problem in theory. Nature Human Behaviour, 3, 221–229. 10.1038/s41562‑018‑0522‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0522-1 [Google Scholar]
  42. Neal, T., Sundararajan, K., Fatima, A., Yan, Y., Xiang, Y., & Woodard, D.
    (2018) Surveying stylometry techniques and applications. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 50(6), 86. 10.1145/3132039
    https://doi.org/10.1145/3132039 [Google Scholar]
  43. Newmeyer, F. J.
    (1998) Language form and language function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H.
    (1983) Natural selection in syntax: Notes on adaptive variation and change in vernacular and literary grammar. Journal of Pragmatics, 7, 551–579. 10.1016/0378‑2166(83)90081‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(83)90081-4 [Google Scholar]
  45. Piantadosi, S. T.
    (2014) Zipf’s word frequency law in natural language: A critical review and future directions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 1112–1130. 10.3758/s13423‑014‑0585‑6
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0585-6 [Google Scholar]
  46. Popper, K. R.
    (1959) The logic of scientific discovery. London, UK: Hutchinson.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Potha, N., & Stamatatos, E.
    (2019) Improving author verification based on topic modeling. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 70, 1074–1088. 10.1002/asi.24183
    https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24183 [Google Scholar]
  48. Robins, R. H.
    (1990) A short history of linguistics. Third ed. (first ed. 1967). London, UK: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Rooryck, J.
    (2006) Generative grammar. InK. Brown (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, Vol.4 (pp.767–769). Amsterdam: Elsevier. 10.1016/B0‑08‑044854‑2/04773‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/04773-8 [Google Scholar]
  50. Shearmur, J., & Stokes, G.
    (Eds.) (2016) The Cambridge companion to Popper. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University press. 10.1017/CCO9781139046503
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CCO9781139046503 [Google Scholar]
  51. Tallerman, M., & Gibson, K. R.
    (2012) Introduction: The evolution of language. InM. Tallerman, & K. R. Gibson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language evolution (pp.1–133). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. The Five Graces Group (Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Ellis, N. C., Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D., Schoenemann, T.
    ) (2009) Language is a complex adaptive system. Language Learning, 59, Supplement1, 1–26. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00533.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00533.x [Google Scholar]
  53. Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B.
    (1994) A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Tinbergen, N.
    (1963) On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 20, 410–433. 10.1111/j.1439‑0310.1963.tb01161.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1963.tb01161.x [Google Scholar]
  55. Tomasello, M.
    (2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Van den Bergh, J. C. J. M.
    (2018) Human evolution beyond biology and culture. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108564922
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108564922 [Google Scholar]
  57. Van Geert, P.
    (1994) Dynamic systems of development: Change between complexity and chaos. New York: Harvester.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. (1998) A dynamic systems model of basic developmental mechanisms: Piaget, Vygotsky and beyond. Psychological Review, 5, 634–677. 10.1037/0033‑295X.105.4.634‑677
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.105.4.634-677 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/dujal.19027.hul
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/dujal.19027.hul
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error