Show Menu
Cheatography

Wetenschapsfilosofie Engels W3 Cheat Sheet by

Wetenschapsfilosofie Week 3/4

Principles of Labov (1975)

Principles for determ­ining when informal elicit­ation is not enough.

Cons­ensus Princi­ple: If there is no reason to think otherwise, assume that the judgments of any native speaker are charac­ter­istic of all speakers.
Expe­rim­enter Princi­ple: If there is any disagr­eement on intros­pective judgments, the judgments of those who are familiar with the theore­tical issues may not be counted as evidence.
Clear Case Princi­ple: Disputed judgments should be shown to include at least one consistent pattern in the speech community or be abandoned. If differing judgments are said to represent different dialects, enough invest­igation of each dialect should be carried out to show that each judgment is a clear case in that dialect.

Corpus data

- to identify and organize a repres­ent­ative sample of a written and/or spoken variety from which charac­ter­istics of the entire variety or genre can be induced.
- conc­ord­ances of word usage: a state in which things agree and do not conflict with each other
- primary method of data collection before other methods
Are corpora too limited? How repres­ent­ative can a corpus ever be?

- Corpus cleani­ng: automatic or manual removal of numerical tables, typogr­aphical slips, spelling mistakes, etc.
- Corpus annota­tion: permit certain kinds of analysis and grammar testing ➝
- part­-of­-speech tagging
The_A­RTICLE boy_NOUN went_VERB home_A­DVERB.
- lemm­ati­zat­ion
going_GO, went_GO, goes_GO, gone_GO
- pars­ing: encoding trees repres­enting underlying structure
- sema­nti­c/p­rag­matic annota­tions
 

Whorfi­anism

According to Whorf, the grammar of a language (rather than the lexicon) cuts up and organizes nature for its speakers.

Strong Sapir–­Whorf hypoth­esis: language dete­rmi­nes thought and that linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive categories
Weak Sapir–­Whorf hypoth­esis: linguistic categories and usage infl­uence thought and certain kinds of non-li­ngu­istic behaviour.

Phen­oty­pes: overt gramma­tical categories typically indicated by morphemic markers
Cryp­tot­ypes: covert gramma­tical catego­ries, marked only implicitly by distri­but­ional patterns in a language that are not immedi­ately apparent.

➝ language must be used in order to think
➝ the only structure and logic that thought has is gramma­tical structure
➝ linguistic structure is comprised, in part, of distri­but­ional patterns in language use that are not explicitly marked

Weak vs. Strong Whorfi­anism

Medi­um-­str­ength version: language could affect certain aspects of our cognitive functi­oning without making certain thoughts unthin­kable for us

Weak versions are viewed as trivial:
• generally accepted as true
• cannot be adequately formulated to develop testable hypotheses
Strong versions are viewed as implau­sib­le:
• It would mean that there are thoughts that a person couldn’t think because of the langua­ge(s) they speak
• It would mean mean that the content of any claim based on this would not be able to be expressed in any language it is true of

Testing Whorfi­anism

Problems with Whorfian studies:
• most have not adequately utilized both the relevant linguistic and psycho­logical research;
• most have focused on optional rather than obligatory linguistic features;
• most have not stated hypotheses in a clear, testable way, and
• most have not ruled out relevant competing Slobin­-like hypotheses

Dan Slobin (1996): when speakers are using their cognitive abilities in the service of a linguistic ability (speaking, writing, transl­ating, etc.), the language they are planning to use to express their thought will have a temporary online effect on how they express their thought. As long as language users are thinking in order to frame their speech or writing or transl­ation in some language, the mandatory features of that language will influence the way they think.
 

Language Acquis­ition

Child language acquis­ition came to prominence because of Essent­ialist work in the 1970s and 1980s. All three approaches agree that some unlearned capacities are necessary to learn language.

General nativi­sm:
• inductive reasoning (“bott­om-up” logic): coming to a conclusion based on your experi­ence, observ­ations, and knowledge up to that point.
• defeas­ible: modifying a conclusion when/if presented with confli­cting data

Ling­uistic nativi­sm:
• language cannot be acquired through induction; structural properties must be largely unlearned
• the acquis­ition of languages makes use of unlearned capacities that are non-la­nguage specific.
➝ non-li­ngu­istic dispos­itions and mechanisms
➝ general cognitive and perceptual capacities
➝ language draws on an unlearned system of Universal Grammar

General Nativism

- Languages are acquired mainly through the exercise of defeasible inductive methods, based on experience of linguistic commun­ication
- The unlearned capacities that underpin language acquis­ition constitute a uniquely human complex of non-li­ngu­istic dispos­itions and mechanisms that also subserve other cognitive functions
- Various non-human animal species may well have most or all of the capacities that humans use for language acquis­iti­on—­though no non-human species seems to have the whole package, so inters­pecies differ­ences are a matter of degree

Linguistic Nativism

- Language cannot be acquired by defeasible inductive methods; its structural principles must to a very large degree be unlearned
- In addition to various broadly langua­ge-­rel­evant cognitive and perceptual capaci­ties, language acquis­ition draws on an unlearned system of ‘universal grammar’ that constrains language form
- There is a special component of the human mind which has the develo­pment of language as its key function, and no non-human species has anything of the sort, so there is a difference in kind between the abilities of humans and other animals

Help Us Go Positive!

We offset our carbon usage with Ecologi. Click the link below to help us!

We offset our carbon footprint via Ecologi
 

Comments

No comments yet. Add yours below!

Add a Comment

Your Comment

Please enter your name.

    Please enter your email address

      Please enter your Comment.

          More Cheat Sheets by Soraya