Cover not available
Part of
Essays on Linguistic Realism
Edited by Christina Behme and Martin Neef
[Studies in Language Companion Series 196] 2018
► pp. 21–60

Chapter 3
‘Biolinguistics’

Some foundational problems

| Ohio State University
The ‘Biolinguistics’ program seeks to establish specific neuroanatomical models corresponding to the representations and operations characterizing the species-specific language faculty in human beings. Yet after decades of research, no neural structures corresponding to specific linguistic structures, rules, constraints or principles have ever been identified. A key to biolinguistics’ failure is, I suggest, its long-term adherence to two dubious assumptions: (i) a kind of literalism in envisaging the relationship between neural anatomy and linguistic representations, reflecting a seriously misconstrual of Marr’s (1982) tripartite division of cognition, and (ii) a view of such representations as objects fundamentally different from other components of human cognitive capacity. (ii) rests on the premise that phrase markers are the optimal formal representation of natural language sentences, despite major empirical difficulties that syntactic accounts based hierarchical phrase structure face in handling a wide variety of grammatical patterns, including non-canonical coordinations and ellipsis constructions. In contrast, proof-theoretic approaches such as type-logical grammar do not face these difficulties, and their foundational assumptions link language to the higher-order cognitive functions supporting deductive reasoning. This conclusion suggests a promising alternative to the current, essentially result-free ‘Biolinguistic’ paradigm.
Keywords: biolinguistics, linguistic ontology, logic, syntax, semantics
Article outline
  • 1.Preview: What’s wrong with ‘biolinguistics’
  • 2.Visual cognition: The role of early edge detection
    • 2.1The physical problem and its mathematical formulation
      • 2.1.1Generalities
      • 2.1.2Smoothing out the visual field
      • 2.1.3Identifying edges
      • 2.1.4From mathematical model to neural architecture
    • 2.2The Marr hierarchy and neurological literalism
  • 3.Domain specificity and natural language
    • 3.1What computation do sets of NL sentences represent?
      • 3.2Rules in Hybrid Type-Logical Categorial Grammar (HTLCG)
    • 3.3Gapping
  • 4.Implication is not domain specific
  • 5.Summary and conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 26 July 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.196.03lev
References (72)
References
Anderson, Stephen R. & Lightfoot, David. 2002. The Language Organ: Linguistics as Cognitive Physiology. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Biology and language: A response to Everett (2005). Journal of Linguistics 42: 377–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ardila, Alfredo, Bernal, Byron & Rosselli, Monica. 2016. How localized are language brain areas? A review of Brodmann areas’ involvement in oral language. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 31(1):112–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Behme, Christina. 2012. The essence of Postal’s criticism: A short reply to Ulfsbjorninn (2012). <[URL]>
. 2013. Biolinguistic platonism remains an oxymoron. <[URL]>
. 2014. A galilean science of language. Journal of Linguistics 51: 671–704. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1976. On the nature of language. In Origins and Evolution of Language and Speech, Steven R. Harnad, Horst D. Steklis & Jane Lancaster (eds). Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 280: 46–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
. 1983. Some conceptual shifts in the study of language. In How Many Questions? Essays in Honor of Sidney Morgenbesser, Leigh S. Cauman, Isaac Levi, Charles D. Parsons & Robert Schwartz (eds), 154–169. Indianapolis IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2012. The Science of Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2000. Parallel Merge and the Syntax of Free Relatives. PhD dissertation, SUNY.Google Scholar
de Groote, Philippe. 2001. Towards abstract categorial grammars. In Association for Computational Linguistics, 39th Annual Meeting and 10th Conference of the European Chapter, 148–155.Google Scholar
de Vries, Mark. 2009. On multidominance and linearization. Biolinguistics 3(4):344–403.Google Scholar
Embick, David & Poeppel, David. 2015. Towards a computational(ist) neurobiology of language: Correlational, integrated and explanatory neurolinguistics. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 30: 357–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Everett, Daniel L. 2001. Discussion: on nonobjects of linguistic study. Linguist List vol. 12, no. i8i6. <[URL]>Google Scholar
Everett, Daniel. 2005. Biology and language: A consideration of alternatives. Journal of Linguistics 41:157–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Biology and language: Response to Anderson & Lightfoot. Journal of Linguistics 42(2): 385–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Jerry. 1975. The Language of Thought. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
. 1983. The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hofmeister, Philip, Staum Casasanto, Laura & Sag, Ivan A. 2012. Misapplying working memory tests: A reductio ad absurdum. Language 88: 408–409. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013a. Islands in the grammar? Standards of evidence. In Experimental Syntax and Island Effects, Jon Sprouse & Norbert Hornstein (eds), 42–63. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hofmeister, Philip, Arnon, Inbal, Jaeger, T. Florian, Sag, Ivan & Snider, Neal. 2013b. The source ambiguity problem: Distinguishing the effects of grammar and processing on acceptability judgments. Language and Cognitive Processes 28: 48–87.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hofmeister, Philip & Sag, Ivan A. 2010. Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language 86(2): 366–415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Pauline. 2007. Direct compositionality and variable-free semantics: The case of “Principle B” effects. In Direct Compositionality, Chris Barker & Pauline Jacobson (eds.), 191–236. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Johnson, Kyle. 2000. Few dogs eat Whiskas or cats Alpo. In University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers, vol. 23, Kiyomi Kusumoto & Elisabeth Villalta (eds), 47–60. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
. 2009. Gapping is not (VP-) ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 40(2): 289–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Julesz, Bela & Caelli, Terry. 1979. On the limits of Fourier decompositions in visual texture perception. Perception 8: 69–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kandybowicz, Jason. 2006. Comp-trace effects explained away. In Proceedings of WCCFL 25, 220–228. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
. 2009. Embracing edges: Syntactic and phono-syntactic edge sensitivity in nupe. NLLT 27: 305–344.Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J. & Postal, Paul M.. 1991. Realism vs. conceptualism in linguistics. Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 515–554. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J. 1981. Language and Other Abstract Objects. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Kehler, Andrew. 2002. Coherence, Reference and the Theory of Grammar. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Kluender, Robert. 1998. On the distinction between strong and weak islands: A processing perspective. In The Limits of Syntax (Syntax and Semantics 29), Peter Culicover & Louise McNally (eds), 241–279. San Diego CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kubota, Yusuke. 2015. Nonconstituent coordination in Japanese as constituent coordination: An analysis in Hybrid Type-Logical Categorial Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 46(1):1–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kubota, Yusuke & Lee, Jungmee. 2015. The Coordinate Structure Constraint as a discourse oriented principle: Further evidence from Japanese and Korean. Language 91(3): 642–675.Google Scholar
Kubota, Yusuke & Levine, Robert. 2014. Scope anomaly of gapping. In Proceedings of NELS 44, 247–260. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
. 2015. Against ellipsis: Arguments for the direct licensing of ‘non-canonical’ coordinations. Linguistics and Philosophy 38(6): 521–576. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016a. Gapping as hypothetical reasoning. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34(1):107–156. DOI logo.Google Scholar
. 2016b. The syntax-semantics interface of ‘respective’ predication: A unified analysis in Hybrid Type-Logical Categorial Grammar. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34 (3): 911–973.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017a. Pseudogapping as pseudo-VP ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 48(2): 213–257.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017b. Scope parallelism in coordination in Dependent Type Semantics. In New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, Mihoko Otake, Setsuya Kurahashi, Yuiko Ota, Ken Satoh & Daisuke Bekki (eds.), 79–92. Berlin: Springer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambek, Joachim. 1958. The mathematics of sentence structure. American Mathematical Monthly 65(3):154–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leipnik, Roy B. 1960. The extended entropy uncertainty principle. Information and Control 3(1):18–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levine, Robert. 2011. Linerarization and its discontents. In The Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Stefan Müller (ed.), 126–146. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Macnamara, John. 1986. A Border Dispute: the Place of Logic in Psychology. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marr, David. 1982. Vision. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marr, David & Hildreth, Ellen. 1980. Theory of edge detection. Proceedings of the Royal Society 207:187–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martins, Pedro Tiago & Boeckx, Cedric. 2016. What we talk about when we talk about biolinguistics. Linguistics Vanguard 2(1). <[URL]>DOI logo
McCawley, James D. 1982. Parentheticals and discontinuous constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 13(1): 91–106.Google Scholar
Monti, Martin M., Parsons, Lawrence & Osherson, Daniel N. 2009. The boundaries of language and thought in deductive inference. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106: 12554–12559. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moot, Richard. To appear. Hybrid type-logical grammars, first-order linear logic and the descriptive inadequacy of Lambda grammars. Journal of Logics and their Applications (International Federation of Computational Logic).
Muskens, Reinhard. 2003. Language, lambdas, and logic. In Resource Sensitivity in Binding and Anaphora, Geert-Jan Kruijff & Richard Oehrle (eds), 23–54. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nediger, Will. 2015. Focus and Condition C. In Proceedings of the 32nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Ulrike Steindl, Thomas Borer, Huilin Fang, Alfredo García Pardo, Peter Guekguezian, Brian Hsu, Charlie O’Hara & Iris Chuoying Ouyang (eds), 296–302. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2003. Review article on On Nature and Language by Noam Chomsky, The Language Organ: Linguistics as Cognitive Psychology by Stephen Anderson and David Lightfoot, and Language in a Darwinian Perspective by B. H. Bichakjian. Language 79: 583–599. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005. Possible and Probable Languages: A Generative Perspective on Linguistics. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. Nonsyntactic explanations of island constraints. Annual Review of Linguistics 2: 187–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oehrle, Richard T. 1987. Boolean properties in the analysis of gapping. In Discontinuous Constituency (Syntax and Semantics 20), Geoffrey J. Huck & Almerindo E. Ojeda (eds), 203–240. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1994. Term-labeled categorial type systems. Linguistics and Philosophy 17(6):633–678. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara & Rooth, Mats. 1983. Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. In Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language, Rainer Bäuerle, Christoph Schwarze & Arnim von Stechow (eds), 361–383. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan A. 1992. Anaphors in English and the scope of binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 23(2): 261–303.Google Scholar
1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Studies in Contemporary Linguistics. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M.. 2009. The incoherence of Chomsky’s ‘biolinguistic’ ontology. Biolinguistics 3(1):247–266.Google Scholar
Reverberi, Carlo, Cherubini, Paolo, Rapisarda, Attilio, Rigamonti, Elisa, Caltagirone, Carlo, Frackowiak, Richard S. J., Macaluso, Emiliano & Paulesu, Eraldo. 2007. Neural basis of generation of conclusions in elementary deduction. NeuroImage 38: 752–762. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rips, Lance J. 1994. The Psychology of Proof. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT. Reproduced by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Safir, Kenneth. 2004. The Syntax of Anaphora. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siegel, Muffy E. A. 1984. Gapping and interpretation. Linguistic Inquiry 15(3): 523–530.Google Scholar
Soames, Scott. 1984. Linguistics and psychology. Linguistics and Philosophy 7:155–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tettamanti, Marco, Rotondi, Irene, Perani, Daniella, Scotti, Giuseppe, Fazio, Ferrucio, Cappa, Stefano F. & Moro, Andrea. 2009. Syntax without language: neurobiological evidence for cross-domain syntactic computations. Cortex 45:825–838. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toosarvandani, Maziar. 2013. Gapping is low coordination (plus VP-ellipsis): A reply to Johnson. Ms, MIT.Google Scholar
Westheimer, Gerald. 2001. The Fourier theory of vision. Perception 30: 531–541. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Buder-Gröndahl, Tommi
2023. The ambiguity of BERTology: what do large language models represent?. Synthese 203:1 DOI logo
Nefdt, Ryan M.
2023. Biolinguistics and biological systems: a complex systems analysis of language. Biology & Philosophy 38:2 DOI logo
Forker, Diana
2021. General linguistics and the nature of human language. Theoretical Linguistics 47:1-2 ► pp. 61 ff. DOI logo
Mondal, Prakash
2020. Introduction. In Language, Biology and Cognition, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 2024. 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.