Article published in:
Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 9:1/2 (2020) ► pp. 21–37

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

| University of Amsterdam
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 in principle, 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 (Hulstijn, 2015, 2019). 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).
Keywords: basic language cognition, language as a complex adaptive system, Darwin’s theory of evolution, falsifiability, theory versus metatheory, individual differences, language use, language acquisition
Article outline
  • 1.Proximate and ultimate explanations in linguistics and psychology
    • 1.1Three paradigms in linguistics and psychology
    • 1.2Popper (1902–1994): Critical rationalism
    • 1.3Chomsky: Generative linguistics
    • 1.4Usage-based linguistics
    • 1.5Theory and metatheory: Proximate and ultimate explanations
  • 2.Explaining individual differences under the view of LCAS
    • 2.1Basic and extended language cognition
    • 2.2Vernacular versus standard language
    • 2.3Individual differences work out differently in control of the vernacular and in control of the standard language
    • 2.4Language assessment
  • 3.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 06 April 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.19027.hul
References
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B.
(1989) Functionalism and the Competition Model. In B. MacWhinney, & E. Bates (Eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing (pp. 3–73). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L.
(1935) Language. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Bod, R.
(2015) Probabilistic linguistics. In B. Heine, & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (2nd ed.) (pp. 663–692). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bradie, M.
(2016) Karl Popper’s evolutionary philosophy. In J. Shearmur, & G. Stokes (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Popper (pp. 143–169). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L.
(2007) Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L., & Hopper, P. J.
(Eds.) (2001) Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N.
(1957) Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1980) Rules and representations. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1981) Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
(2005) Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 361, 1–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N.
(2016) The Now-or-Never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 391, 1–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W.
(2001) Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, P. W., & Jackendoff, R.
(2005) Simpler syntax. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M.
(2005) An introduction to second language acquisition: Dynamic aspects. London, UK: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H.
(2019) The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C.
(2002) Frequency effects in language processing and acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 241, 143–88. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Larsen-Freeman, D.
(Eds.) (2009) Language as a complex adaptive system. Language Learning, 591, Supplement 1.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(2013) Constructionist approaches to language. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.) Handbook of construction grammar (pp. 15–31). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Han, Z.-H.
(Ed.) (2019) Profiling learner language as a dynamic system. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M.
submitted). Explaining grammatical coding asymmetries: Form-frequency correspondencies and predictability.
Hawkins, J. A.
(2004) Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Cross-linguistic variation and efficiency. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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 5 November 1999 Amsterdam: Vossiuspers AUP.Google Scholar
(2011) Language proficiency in native and nonnative speakers: An agenda for research and suggestions for second-language assessment. Language Assessment Quarterly, 81, 229–249. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Language proficiency in native and non-native speakers: Theory and research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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. [http://​www​.linguisticsinamsterdam​.nl​/home​?issue​=101]
(2019) An individual-differences framework for comparing nonnative with native speakers: Perspectives from BLC Theory. Language Learning, 691, Supplement 11, 157–183. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H., Ellis, R., & Eskildsen, S.
(Eds.) (2015) Orders and sequences in the acquisition of L2 morphosyntax, 40 years on. Language Learning, 651 (special issue).Google Scholar
Hyams, N. M.
(1986) Language acquisition and the theory of parameters. Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keller, R.
(1994) On language change: The invisible hand in language. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T.
(1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D.
(1997) Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 181, 141–165. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lestrade, S.
(2017) Unzipping Zipf’s law. PLoS ONE, 12(8), e0181987. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. H.
(2019) Individual differences and the ergodicity problem. Language Learning, 691, Supplement 11, 184–206. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B.
(2015) Introduction: Language emergence. In B. MacWhinney, & W. O’Grady (Eds.), The handbook of language emergence (pp. 1–31). Chisester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A.
(2003) The cognitive revolution: A historical perspective. Trends in Cognitive Science, 71, 141–144. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H.
(1960) Plans and the structure of behavior. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mufwene, S. S., Coupé, C., & Pellegrino, F.
(2017) Complexity in language: A multifaceted phenomenon. In S. S. Mufwene, C. Coupé, & F. Pellegrino (Eds.), Complexity in language: Developmental and evolutionary perspectives (pp. 1–29). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mulder, K., & Hulstijn, J. H.
(2011) Linguistic skills of adult native speakers, as a function of age and level of education. Applied Linguistics, 321, 475–494. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Muthukrishna, M., & Henrich, J.
(2019) A problem in theory. Nature Human Behaviour, 31, 221–229. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J.
(1998) Language form and language function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H.
(1983) Natural selection in syntax: Notes on adaptive variation and change in vernacular and literary grammar. Journal of Pragmatics, 71, 551–579. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Piantadosi, S. T.
(2014) Zipf’s word frequency law in natural language: A critical review and future directions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 211, 1112–1130. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. R.
(1959) The logic of scientific discovery. London, UK: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Potha, N., & Stamatatos, E.
(2019) Improving author verification based on topic modeling. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 701, 1074–1088. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Robins, R. H.
(1990) A short history of linguistics. Third ed. (first ed. 1967). London, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Rooryck, J.
(2006) Generative grammar. In K. Brown et al. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, Vol. 41 (pp. 767–769). Amsterdam: Elsevier. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shearmur, J., & Stokes, G.
(Eds.) (2016) The Cambridge companion to Popper. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tallerman, M., & Gibson, K. R.
(2012) Introduction: The evolution of language. In M. Tallerman, & K. R. Gibson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language evolution (pp. 1–133). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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, 591, Supplement 11, 1–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
Tinbergen, N.
(1963) On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 201, 410–433. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M.
(2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Van den Bergh, J. C. J. M.
(2018) Human evolution beyond biology and culture. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Geert, P.
(1994) Dynamic systems of development: Change between complexity and chaos. New York: Harvester.Google Scholar
(1998) A dynamic systems model of basic developmental mechanisms: Piaget, Vygotsky and beyond. Psychological Review, 51, 634–677. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

Full-text

Proximate and ultimate explanations of individual differences in language use and language acquisition
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Han, ZhaoHong
2020. Usage-based instruction, systems thinking, and the role of Language Mining in second language development. Language Teaching ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 april 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.