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
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

Cited by 4 other publications

Buder-Gröndahl, Tommi
2023. The ambiguity of BERTology: what do large language models represent?. Synthese 203:1 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
Nefdt, Ryan M.
2023. Biolinguistics and biological systems: a complex systems analysis of language. Biology & Philosophy 38:2 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 april 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.