From: IN%"linguist@tamsun.tamu.edu" "The Linguist List" 22-NOV-1993 21:59:25.00 To: IN%"LINGUIST@TAMVM1.BITNET" "Multiple recipients of list LINGUIST" CC: Subj: 4.967 Linguistics as psychology Received: from HKUVM1.HKU.HK (MAILER@HKUVM1) by vax.csc.cuhk.hk (PMDF #12160) id <01H5MQRDXLGW8WW180@vax.csc.cuhk.hk>; Mon, 22 Nov 1993 21:57 +0800 Received: from HKUVM1.HKU.HK by HKUVM1.HKU.HK (Mailer R2.10 ptf000) with BSMTP id 6949; Mon, 22 Nov 93 21:52:39 HKT Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1993 11:40:06 -0600 From: The Linguist List Subject: 4.967 Linguistics as psychology Sender: The LINGUIST Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list LINGUIST Reply-to: The Linguist List Message-id: <01H5MQRDXLGW8WW180@vax.csc.cuhk.hk> Comments: To: linguist@tamvm1.tamu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- LINGUIST List: Vol-4-967. Sun 21 Nov 1993. ISSN: 1068-4875. Lines: 207 Subject: 4.967 Linguistics as psychology Moderators: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar: Texas A&M U. Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan U. Asst. Editor: Ron Reck -------------------------Directory------------------------------------- 1) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1993 11:48:30 -0600 From: fcosws@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu.\d (Steven Sch\dufele) Subject: linguistics as psychology, linguistics as anthropology, linguistics as ... ? 2) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 93 17:03:30 PST From: Richard Wojcik Subject: Re: 4.961 Psycholinguistics 3) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1993 11:45:34 -0800 From: koenig@garnet.berkeley.edu -------------------------Messages-------------------------------------- 1) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1993 11:48:30 -0600 From: fcosws@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu.\d (Steven Sch\dufele) Subject: linguistics as psychology, linguistics as anthropology, linguistics as ... ? In LINGUIST 4.934 Esa Itkonen raises the question 'Is linguistics just a subbranch of psychology?', and mentions three possible alternatives: (1) linguists who 'systematize the intuitive notion of "grammatical (and meaningful) sentence" while paying no attention to, and even going against, any reasonable hypotheses about psychological structures and/or processes and who, nevertheless, achieve exemplary results.' (2) linguists who claim 'to be doing psychological/psycholinguistic research' but are actually pursuing research programs analogous to those of the first type. (3) linguists 'who both claim to be doing and are in fact doing psycholinguistic (= preferably experimental) research.' I'm not sure this covers all of us. For one thing, i'm not at all sure where i fit into this typology. Perhaps this is the time to remind everybody that, historically, the discipline of linguistics in Europe (and, as far as i know, elsewhere in the 'Old World') developed out of such disciplines as classics, liturgics, and literary studies -- basically humanistic (in a rather broad sense) type stuff. Here in North America, on the other hand, linguistics as an academic discipline developed in connection with anthropology; consider Boaz, Bloomfield, etc. Granted, in the 19th century we had some American linguists trained in the philological traditions of European linguistics, e.g. Whitney, but academic linguistics really took off here in the early 20th century with Boaz, Bloomfield, and that whole school of anthropological linguistics directed towards the study of 'indigenous'=non-Indo-European languages. The notion of linguistics as a branch of psychology is simply another point of view ('aspect' in the literal sense) on the study of human language. As far as i know, it is relatively new -- a product of the 'generative enterprise'. In any case it is an enrichment of our field, but i don't think it should be allowed to supplant the older aspects (in this respect i am in complete agreement with Edith A Moravcsik 's remarks in the same LINGUIST posting). Now, personally, i subscribe wholeheartedly to the generative agenda as far as the goals of linguistics are concerned: i view our purpose as illuminating an important part of human cognitive ability. In this respect, when i am asked 'What is linguistics?' or 'What do linguists do?' or 'What is linguistics good for?' i tend to give an answer that implies that linguistics is a branch of psychology or, at least, that it is primarily a 'cognitive' science. But i find, coming down to brass tacks, that when i am actually doing research i am functioning more like an anthropologist: collecting linguistic-behavioural data from a variety of sources that vary along a set of axes such as ethnicity, geographical location, chronology (both biological age and location in time, as distinct from space), social status/function, etc. and trying to relate the observed variation in linguistic behaviour to these extra-linguistic variables in the manner of an anthropologist. I suppose one could start from the same origin and address the whole business from a sociological point of view, but it's the anthropological parallel that seems to work best for me. Note that literary studies haven't been mentioned here, even though at the moment i am primarily involved in the study of literary corpora; i may be looking at the same sort of data a literary scholar might study, but i'm treating it the way i imagine an anthropologist treats the behaviour hann observes in the field. So although i am prepared to recognize linguistics as certainly related to psychology, and even individual linguists as, in a sense, basically psychologists whose area of research and expertise happens to be human language, i have trouble seeing myself in that mold. I am fascinated by what linguistics can tell us about human psychology and cognition, but that's not the way i pursue linguistic research. Perhaps this is what Esa meant by the 'HINT: accept the existence of dissimilar objectives, but reject contradiction between words and deeds'? Best, Steven ------ Dr. Steven Schdufele 217-344-8240 712 West Washington Ave. fcosws@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu Urbana, IL 61801 *** O syntagmata linguarum liberemini humanarum! *** **** Nihil vestris privari nisi obicibus potestis! **** -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 93 17:03:30 PST From: Richard Wojcik Subject: Re: 4.961 Psycholinguistics Martin Haspelmath has argued (correctly IMHO) that the cognitive/psychological tradition in linguistics has strong historical roots (contra Schaufele). I want to comment on the following remarks made by Haspelmath: >... > The Neogrammarians had a clear cognitive orientation, and so did the > European structuralism of Trubetzkoy and Jakobson (note that Jakobson > 1944 was one of the first linguists to bring together data from aphasia > and linguistic theory). > The only influential anti-cognitivist, anti-psychological school was > Bloomfield and the post-Bloomfieldians... Although Trubetzkoy and (more especially) Jakobson had much to say about the psychological effects of grammar, I think a case can be made that they were in the forefront of their contemporaries in rejecting psychologism. First of all, both linguists were products of Fortunatov's Moscow Formalists, arch-rivals of St. Petersburg's more cognitive-oriented view of language. When Trubetzkoy and Jakobson joined other Russian linguists in adopting Baudouin de Courtenay's psychological theory of phonemics--a theory that relied heavily on the intertwining of phonology with linguistic perception and production--they sought to redefine the phoneme in structural, rather than psychological, terms. Trubetzkoy even dismissed Baudouin in passing in his textbook. I would say that structuralism had very strong roots in formalism, and that it was generally anti-cognitivist in flavor. Although the post- Bloomfieldians represented a rather extreme anti-cognitivist position, one cannot simply say that Trubetzkoy and Jakobson were pro-cognitive simply because of their differences with extremists. They were all structuralists, after all. The Prague Schoolers weren't even alone in their rejection of psychologism. The Moscow School of Phonology, which arose in parallel with the Prague School, was not structuralist. They didn't follow in Saussure's wake. But, true to Fortunatov's memory, they came to divorce Baudouin's theory from its foundation in language behavior (while continuing to talk about its relevance to linguistic behavior--just like Jakobson). They wanted to define linguistic systems in more "objective" terms. I think that the competence/performance dichotomy, along with its necessary distinction between internal and external evidence, has served one main purpose in the history of linguistics: to get structuralists thinking again about the psychological underpinnings of the grammar. But the dichotomy rests on the shaky assumption that the brain has a specialized function for introspection about linguistic behavior. I think that humans are able to introspect about everything they do. Intuitive judgments are tied to a general cognitive ability, and linguistic "systems" exist for other purposes--to instruct people on how to produce (and comprehend) linguistic messages. So it isn't surprising to me that linguists keep batting their eyelashes at psychologists. They belong together. :-) --- Disclaimer: Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer. Rick Wojcik (rwojcik@boeing.com) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1993 11:45:34 -0800 From: koenig@garnet.berkeley.edu re psycholinguistics/aphasia evidence. A good example of the difficulty of interpreting the bearing of external evidence on linguistic theories is given by Vicku Fromkin's example of this brain damaged patient that could not identify a cow or a horse when presented pictures of the animals but could, when the pictures were of a cow kicking the horse (or the reverse) could use syntax to point out at the cow or horse. She concludes: " Thus any theory of grammar which does not separate syntax from semantics is unable to account for such data" I'm not sure what exactly Vicki Fromkin had in mind here, but, if I understand correctly the experiment, I don't know of any theory of grammar on the market that would not explain the result. 1. Presumably, the patient understands the semantics of "kick" including how to distinguish the kick-er and the kick-ee 2. The patient has some idea of "subcategorization" and how to relate subcategorized for arguments to surface syntax (however this is accomplished in your favorite theory: theta-criterion and Case theory, Subcategorization Principle Completeness and Coherence, elaboration sites...) 3. THe patient therefore knows how to identify the kicker and the kickee from a combination of his/her knowledge of the meaning of "kick" and his/her knowledge of point 2. ANY theory I know of, whatever their stance on the syntax/semantics interface has the equivalent of subcategorization and, to simplify, the theta-criterion. So, the experiment does not help us decide any contested point of linguistic theory, which, by the way, is a very positive result. It means that all linguists agree that in form or another, the notion of subcategorization and its relation to surface syntax is a crucial aspect of the language faculty. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LINGUIST List: Vol-4-967.