Linguagem Cognicao e Evolucao

7/29/2019 Linguagem Cognicao e Evolucao

1/35

Linguagem, Cognio e Evoluo

PUCRS

JORGE CAMPOS


2/35

Metateoria das Interfaces

Interfaces Externas (IE) - Interdisciplinares

Interfaces Internas (II) - Intradisciplinares

Ex.:

IE Lingstica e Psicologia Cognitiva

Lingstica e Lgica Clssica

Lingstica e Comunicao Social

II - FonologiaMorfologia - Lexicologia

SintaxeSemntica - Pragmtica


3/35

Lingstica e Cognio

ChomskyGerativismo/Biolingstica

A faculdade da linguagem est enraizadano crebro/mente humano numa GramticaUniversal de base inata.

O Argumento da Pobreza de Estmulo


4/35

Lingstica e Psicologia Evolucionria

A Evoluo da Linguagem

Darwinismo e Seleo Natural

Dawkins e Gene Egosta

Pinker e JackendoffAdaptao

Chomsky e GouldExaptao

Susan Blackmore - Memes


5/35

Lingstica e Psicologia Evolucionria

Lingstica EvolucionriaDarwinismo e Seleo Natural

Pinker and Bloom, 1990; Hauser,Chomsky, and Fitch, 2002;

Jackendoff, 2002


6/35

Lingstica e Cincias Cognitivas

Linguagem e Crebro/Mente


7/35

Linguagem e Crebro

Hemisfrios e Lateralidade


8/35

Lingstica Evolucionria

Hauser, Chomsky e Fitch (The Faculty of Language:What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve?

Faculdade da Linguagem (FL) - propriedade

Do crebro/mente

FLB ( broad) / FLN (narrow)A investigao da FL deve ser interdisciplinar

We argue that an understanding of the facultyof language requires substantial interdisciplinary

cooperation. We suggest how currentdevelopments in linguistics can

be profitably wedded to work in evolutionarybiology, anthropology, psychology, andneuroscience. We submit that a distinction shouldbe made between the faculty of language in thebroad sense (FLB)and in the narrow sense (FLN).


9/35

Hauser, Chomsky e Fitch

FLB:

sistema sensrio-motorSistema conceptual-intencional

Mecanismos computacionais

FLN:

sistema recursivo

FLB includes a sensory-motor system, a conceptual-intentional

system, and the computational mechanisms for recursion,

providing the capacity to generate an infinite range of

expressions from a finite set of elements. We hypothesize thatFLN only includes recursion and is the only uniquely human

component of the faculty of language. We further argue that

FLN may have evolved for reasons other than language, hence

comparative studies might look for evidence of such

computations outside of the domain of communication (for

example, number, navigation, and social relations).


10/35


Se marciamos observassem:

cdigo universal no DNA /

genes geram variaes ilimitadas de

espcies - humanas e outras

Ao contrrio,

no parece haver cdigos universais de

comunicaolnguas humanas so

gerativas, recursivas, criativas, ilimitadashierrquicas, muito diferentemente de

outras espciescomo os genes


11/35



12/35


A propriedade recursiva prpria da

linguagem humana e o centro computa-

cional da cognio.(FLN) o nico fator

diferencial homem-animal.

1 N

Se a est em N, ento a+1 est em N

Se a+1 est em N, ento a+1+1 tambm

Joo viu Maria, que irm de Lus, que

conhece Pedro, que gosta de Lcia, que

foi para Porto Alegre, que a capital...


13/35


Se marcianos observassem:

vendo as variaes ilimitadas de cdi-

gos comunicativos incompreensveis

entre siquereriam saber como os hu-

nos desenvolveram a linguagem.

A evoluo da linguagem humana pode-

ria distinguirfatores computacionais de

fatores comunicativos: os primeiros po-

deriam se desenvolver independente-

mente dos segundo que mais tarde viriam a

se mostrar importantes.


14/35

Trs Fatores Distintos na Evoluo1 Compartilhado versus nico

2 Gradual versus saltacional

3 Contnuo versus exaptativoNo h consenso - noo de linguagem

Lnguagem Econceito scio-cultural

Linguagem Iconceito cognitivo

In informal usage, a language is understood as aculturally specific communication system (English,Navajo, etc.). In the varieties of modern linguisticsthat concern us here, the term language is usedquite differently to refer to an internal component

of the mind/brain (sometimes called internal

language or I-language). We assume that this isthe primary object of interest for the study of theevolution and function of the language faculty.

i l b t it?*


15/35

The faculty of language: whats special about it?*

Steven Pinker and Ray Jackendoff (PJ)

PJ consideram problemtica a hiptese de HCF sobre

a recurso(HRO) como aspecto unicamente humano

e unicamente para a linguagem.

It ignores the many aspects of grammar that arenot recursive, such as phonology, morphology,

case, agreement, and many properties of words. Itis inconsistent with the anatomy and neural controlof the human vocal tract. And it is weakened byexperiments suggesting that speech perceptioncannot be reduced to primate audition, that word

learning cannot be reduced to fact learning, andthat at least one gene involved in speech andlanguage was evolutionarily selected in the humanlineage but is not specific to recursion. (PJ)


16/35

Evoluo da Linguagem (Pinker and Jackendoff)

PJ rejeitam a hiptese de que a lingua-

gem no seja uma adaptao, que ela

seja perfeita, no-redundante, no ne-

cessariamente usvel, e mal desenhada

para a comunicao.

The hypothesis that language is a

complex adaptation for communication

which evolved piecemeal avoids all

these problems. (PJ)


17/35


The most fundamental question in the

study of the human language faculty is itsplace in the natural world: what kind of

biological system it is, and how it relates to

other systems in our own species and

others

1 O que aprendido do ambiente

2 O que vem com o desenho do crebro

3 Que partes so especficas da lingua-quais so gerais

4 Que aspectos so s humanos e quais

so compartilhados com outro animais.


18/35

A HRU anula a proposta de adaptao

da linguagem para a comunicao

defendida por PJ.

As HCF note (p. 1572), the two of us have advanced

a position rather different from theirs, namely that

the language faculty, like other biological systems

showing signs of complex adaptive design (Dawkins,

1986; Williams, 1966), is a system

of co-adapted traits that evolved by natural selection

(Jackendoff, 1992, 1994, 2002;

Pinker, 1994b, 2003; Pinker & Bloom, 1990).

Specifically, the language faculty evolved in

the human lineage for the communication of complex

propositions.



19/35


PJ enfraquecem a HRU:

Conceptual structure: HCF plausibly suggest thathuman conceptual structure partly

overlaps with that of other primates and partly

incorporates newly evolved capacities.

Speech perception. HCF suggest it is simply genericprimate auditory perception. But

the tasks given to monkeys are not comparable to

the feats of human speech perception,

and most of Libermans evidence for the Speech-is-

Special hypothesis, and more recent

experimental demonstrations of humanmonkey

differences in speech perception, are

not discussed.


20/35


Speech production. HCFs recursion-onlyhypothesis implies no selection forspeech

production in the human lineage. But control of thesupralaryngeal vocaltract is incomparably morecomplex in human language than in other primate

vocalizations. Vocal imitation and vocal learningare uniquely human among primates (talents thatare consistently manifested only in speech). Andsyllabic babbling emerges spontaneously in humaninfants. HCF further suggest that the distinctivelyhuman anatomy of the vocal tract may have been

selected for size exaggeration rather than speech.Yet the evidence for the former in humans is weak,and does not account for the distinctive anatomyof the supralaryngeal parts of the vocal tract.


21/35


Phonology. Not discussed by HCF. Lexicon. HCFdiscuss two ways in which words are a distincti-

vely human ability, possibly unique to our species.But they assign words to the broad languagefaculty, which is shared by other human cognitive

faculties, without discussing the ways in whichwords appear to be tailored to languagenamely

that they consist in part (sometimes in large part)of grammatical information, and that they arebidirectional, shared, organized, and generic in

reference, features that are experimentaldemonstrable in young childrens learning of words.


22/35


Morphology: Not discussed by HCF.

Syntax: Case, agreement, pronouns,predicate-argument structure, topic, focus,

auxiliaries, question markers, and so on,are not discussed by HCF. Recursion is said

to be human-specific, but no distinction ismade between arbitrary recursive

mathematical systems and the particularkinds of recursive phrase structure found in

human languages. We conclude that theempirical case for the recursion-onlyhypothesis is extremely weak.

S. Pinker, R. Jackendoff / Cognition 95

(2005) 201236 217


23/35


1 Alguns dos fundamentos do sistema

conceptual-intencional esto presentes

em outros animais(espaciais, causais,..)

H sistemas que dependem da lingua-

gem, o conceito de semana e outros.

2 A percepo da fala humana espe-

cial (SiS H), diferente de primatas, ten-do sido adaptaes para intenes arti-

culatrias humanas.

HCF recusam isso.


24/35


PJ trazem muitas evidncias de que h

mais aspectos da evoluo do que HCFDefendem:

1 Fala e som so fenmenos diferentes

2 Neuroimagem e desordens mostramdiferentes reas envolvidas em fala e

sons

3 Crianas recm-nascidos distinguemfala de sons semelhantes

4 Animais-primatas no so competen-

tes para a distino de sons da fala

Th t f th l f lt d it


25/35

The nature of the language faculty and its

implications for evolution of language

(Reply to Fitch, Hauser, and Chomsky)*

Ray Jackendoff, Steven Pinker

In a continuation of the conversation with Fitch,Chomsky, and Hauser on the evolution of language,

we examine their defense of the claim that theuniquely human, language-specific part of the

language faculty (the narrow language faculty)consists only of recursion, and that this partcannot be considered an adaptation tocommunication. We argue that theircharacterization of the narrow language faculty is

problematic for many reasons, including itsdichotomization of cognitive capacities into thosethat are utterly unique and those that are identicalto nonlinguistic or nonhuman capacities, omittingcapacities that may have been substantially

modified during human evolution


26/35


We also question their dichotomy of the currentutility versus original function of a trait, which

omits traits that are adaptations for current use,and their dichotomy of humans and animals, whichconflates similarity due to common function andsimilarity due to inheritance from a recent commonancestor. We show that recursion, though absent

from other animals communications systems, isfound in visual cognition, hence cannot be the soleevolutionary development that granted language tohumans. Finally, we note that despite Fitch et al.sdenial, their view of language evolution is tied toChomskys conception of language itself, whichidentifies combinatorial productivity with a core ofnarrow syntax.


27/35

A Complexidade da Linguagem e a Evoluo

Dan Everett e o caso do Pirah
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,grossbild-620031-414291,00.html


28/35

O Pirah, Cultura e Linguagem

Dan Everett 2005 article

in CurrentAnthropology,"CulturalCons-

traints on Grammar and Cognition in

Pirah," has caused a controversy in

the field of linguistics.

Pirah: As Observaes de Everett
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_Anthropologyhttp://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,grossbild-620031-414291,00.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_Anthropology


29/35

Pirah: As Observaes de Everett

-O Pirah usa somente trs pronomes

-Sem palavras para tempo-Sem conjugao de verbos de passado

-Sem importncia para cores

-No usam subordinao

-No tm necessidade de nmeros

-Sem quantificadores, todo, cada, ...

-hi significa 1, ou pequena quantida-

de, ou pequeno

Sem estrias simblicas ou fices


30/35

O Debate Everett / Chomsky

Everett: Interao linguagem-culturaChomsky: interao linguagem-natureza

Everett: Linguagem variao universal

Chomsky: Gramtica UniversalEverett: Linguagem expressa cultura

Chomsky: Hiptese Inatista

Everett: Princpio da Experincia

Imediata

Chomsky: FLN - Recurso


31/35


Everett: Pirah no tem recurso notem matemtica, msica, computa-

o, filosofia, etc.

Pinker: Se o Pirah no tem recurso,

ento tal propriedade no universal;

Se no universal, no explica a lin-

guagem humana, e Chomsky est refu-

Tado.


32/35


Everett defende a pesquisa de campo, a

Antropolgica Lingstica como decisiva

em termos de deduo, induo e

abduo, recusando idias a priori

sobre inatismo e gramtica universal

Chomsky tem uma concepo de Filo-sofia da Cincia em que a observao

se segue para corroborar o programa de

Investigao.


33/35

Pirah: Uma Viso Crtica

Nevins e Pezetsky: Contra tese / Everett

1 Pirah tem oraes encaixadas

2 Pirah tem quantificadores

3 Construes discutidas por Everett

aparecem em lnguas sem as restries

culturais do Pirah( alemo, chins,...)Princpio da Experincia Imediata

nenhuma evidncia de relao causal

cultura e estrutura gramatical


34/35

Pirah: uma Viso Crtica

Syntax

1. "the absence of embedding;

Lexicon/Semantics

2. "the absence of numbers or any kind or

a concept of counting and of any terms for

quantification;

3. "the absence of color terms;

4. "the simplest pronoun inventory known; 5. "the absence of 'relative tenses';

.


35/35

Pirah: uma Viso Crtica

Culture

6. "the absence of creation myths andfiction;3

7. "the absence of drawing or other art;

8. "the fact that the Pirah are monolingual

after more than 200 years of regularcontact with

Brazilians;

9. "the absence of any individual orcollective memory of more than twogenerations past;

10. "the simplest kinship system yetdocumented;

11. "one of the simplest material cultures

doc mented

Documents

Linguagem Cognicao e Evolucao