Motor cognition, cognition, Motor communication and and communication the language faculty the language faculty Summer Institute, , The Origins The Origins of of Language Language Summer Institute UQAM, June June 23, 2010 23, 2010 UQAM, Pierre Jacob Pierre Jacob Institut Jean Nicod Nicod Institut Jean Paris, France Paris, France http://www.institutnicod http://www.institutnicod
Three basic questions basic questions Three (1) Contribution of somatotopic motor representations somatotopic motor representations of actions of actions (1) Contribution of triggered by perception of action by perception of action verbs verbs to to understanding understanding of of triggered meaning of of utterances utterances? ? meaning (2) Contribution of MN activity activity to to recursivity recursivity of of human human (2) Contribution of MN language faculty? ? language faculty (3) Contribution of MN activity activity to to addressee addressee’ ’s representation s representation of of (3) Contribution of MN speaker’ ’s meaning s meaning or communicative intention? or communicative intention? speaker
Structure Structure • 1. 1. The human language faculty The human language faculty • • 2. 2. Human Human communication: an communication: an inferential inferential model model • • 3. 3. Motor representations Motor representations of actions of actions and and lexical lexical • semantics semantics • 4. 4. The mirror The mirror system system and the evolution and the evolution of of • language use use language • 5. MN 5. MN activity and activity and communicative intentions communicative intentions •
The HLF HLF The • 1.1. 1.1. Why the core Why the core of of the the HLF HLF is syntax is syntax • • 1.2. 1.2. Why the Why the HLF HLF includes recursive rules includes recursive rules • • 1.3. 1.3. The evolutionary function The evolutionary function of of the the HLF HLF •
The HLF HLF The • 1.1. 1.1. Why the core Why the core of of the the HLF HLF is syntax is syntax • • (i) (i) Each Each expression expression of a of a natural language is natural language is a a pairing pairing of of • sound and meaning properties, i.e. < , i.e. <phonology phonology, , meaning meaning> > sound and meaning properties • ( (ii ii) ) The The < <phonology phonology, , meaning meaning> > mapping mapping for for any complex any complex • phrase or sentence depends depends on on the the < <phonology phonology, , meaning meaning> > phrase or sentence mapping for for its constituents its constituents. . mapping • ( (iii iii) ) The syntax is the computational mechanism that The syntax is the computational mechanism that • generates a a representation representation of of the the < <phonology phonology, , meaning meaning> > generates mapping for a sentence for a sentence from the representation from the representation of of the the mapping <phonology phonology, , meaning meaning> > mapping mapping for for each each of of its its < constituents. . constituents
The HLF HLF The • 1.2. 1.2. Why the Why the HLF HLF includes recursive rules includes recursive rules • • (1a) (1a) Colorless Colorless green green ideas sleep furiously ideas sleep furiously • • (1b) Chomsky (1b) Chomsky wrote wrote ‘ ‘Colorless Colorless green green ideas sleep furiously ideas sleep furiously’ ’ • • (1c) (1c) Fodor believes that Fodor believes that Chomsky Chomsky wrote wrote ‘ ‘Colorless Colorless green green • ideas sleep furiously’ ’ ideas sleep furiously • (1d) (1d) Pinker doubts that Fodor believes that Pinker doubts that Fodor believes that Chomsky Chomsky wrote wrote • ‘Colorless Colorless green green ideas sleep furiously ideas sleep furiously’ ’, , etc etc. . ‘ • (2a) (2a) the girl the girl’ ’s s dog dog • • (2b) (2b) the girl the girl’ ’s friend s friend’ ’s s dog dog • • (2c) (2c) the girl the girl’ ’s friend s friend’ ’s cousin s cousin’ ’s s dog dog • • (2d) (2d) the girl the girl’ ’s friend s friend’ ’s cousin s cousin’ ’s roommate s roommate’ ’s s dog dog •
The recursivity of of the the HLF HLF The recursivity • (1a-d) (1a-d) and and (2a-d) show (2a-d) show that there is that there is no grammatical no grammatical upper upper • bound on on length length of sentences of of sentences of English English. . bound • If If so so, , then there is then there is no grammatical no grammatical upper bound upper bound on on • cardinality of set of of set of English English sentences. sentences. cardinality • If If so so, , then syntax then syntax of of English English must must include recursive rules include recursive rules, , • i.e. rules that can take their own rules that can take their own output as input output as input i.e. (indefinitely indefinitely): ): ( • (a) S —> NP VP • (b) VP —> V S
The HLF HLF cont cont. . The • 1.3. 1.3. The evolutionary function The evolutionary function of of the the HLF HLF • • The evolutionary function The evolutionary function of of the the HLF HLF is is to to enable any enable any • human infant to infant to acquire her acquire her native native language language L L, i.e. , i.e. tacit tacit human knowledge of of the grammar the grammar of of L L from her from her perception of perception of knowledge linguistic stimuli, i.e. stimuli, i.e. utterances utterances of sentences of of sentences of L L made made linguistic available to to her her by speakers of by speakers of L L. . available • Problem Problem: : how how was the was the HLF HLF selected given that the selected given that the HLF HLF • could only be adaptive adaptive if if there were conspecifics around there were conspecifics around could only be who spoke some natural language or or other other? ? who spoke some natural language
Structure Structure • 1. 1. The human language faculty The human language faculty • • 2. 2. Human Human communication: an communication: an inferential inferential model model • • 3. 3. Motor representations Motor representations of actions of actions and and lexical lexical • semantics semantics • 4. 4. The mirror The mirror system system and the evolution and the evolution of of • language use use language • 5. MN 5. MN activity and activity and communicative intentions communicative intentions •
Inference in in human human communication communication Inference • 2.1. 2.1. Decoding Decoding vs. vs. inferential processes inferential processes • • 2.2. 2.2. The The code model vs. code model vs. the inferential the inferential model of model of • communication communication • 2.3. 2.3. The Gricean inferential The Gricean inferential model of model of • communication and mindreading and mindreading communication • 2.4. 2.4. The Gricean The Gricean tripartite model of tripartite model of meaning meaning •
Inference in in human human communication communication Inference • 2.1. 2.1. Decoding Decoding vs. vs. inferential processes inferential processes • • A A decoding decoding process maps a signal onto its associated process maps a signal onto its associated • message by applying the rules of an underlying code. message by applying the rules of an underlying code. • An An inferential inferential process derives a conclusion from a set of process derives a conclusion from a set of • premises in such a way that the former is warranted in such a way that the former is warranted premises (justified) by the latter. (justified) by the latter. • A conclusion follows from, but is not associated with, its A conclusion follows from, but is not associated with, its • premises. premises. • Nor does a signal justify its message. Nor does a signal justify its message. •
Inference in in human human communication communication Inference • 2.2. 2.2. The The code model vs. code model vs. the inferential the inferential model of model of • communication communication • On the code model, most if not all of the content of a On the code model, most if not all of the content of a • speaker’ ’s utterance has been coded into, and must be s utterance has been coded into, and must be speaker decoded from, the linguistic meaning of the uttered decoded from, the linguistic meaning of the uttered sentence. sentence. • On an inferential model, the content of a speaker On an inferential model, the content of a speaker’ ’s s • utterance is vastly underdetermined by the coded utterance is vastly underdetermined by the coded linguistic meaning of the uttered sentence. linguistic meaning of the uttered sentence.
Recommend
More recommend
