[net.ai] Seminar - Anatomical Analogy for Linguistics

chertok%ucbkim%Berkeley@sri-unix.UUCP (09/27/84)

From:  chertok%ucbkim@Berkeley (Paula Chertok)

                BERKELEY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM
                            Fall 1984
              Cognitive Science Seminar -- IDS 237A

       TIME:                Tuesday, October 2, 11 - 12:30
       PLACE:               240 Bechtel Engineering Center
       DISCUSSION:          12:30 - 2 in 200 Building T-4

   SPEAKER:        Jerry Sadock, Center for the Advanced  Study
                   in   the  Behavioral  Sciences;  Linguistics
                   Department, University of Chicago

   TITLE:          Linguistics as Anatomy

   ABSTRACT:       The notion of modularity in linguistic  sys-
                   tems  is often supported by invoking an ana-
                   tomical metaphor in which the  various  sub-
                   systems  of the grammar are the analogues of
                   the organs of the body.  The primitive  view
                   of  anatomy  that  is employed supposes that
                   the organs are entirely separate in internal
                   structure, nonoverlapping in function, shar-
                   ply  distinguished  from  one  another,  and
                   entirely autonomous in their internal opera-
                   tion.

                   There is a great deal of suggestive evidence
                   from  language  systems  that  calls many of
                   these assumptions into  question  and  indi-
                   cates  that there are transmodular `systems'
                   that form part of the internal structure  of
                   various  modules,  that there is a good deal
                   of redundancy of function between  grammati-
                   cal  components,  that the boundaries of the
                   modules are unsharp, and that  the  workings
                   of  one module can be sensitive to the work-
                   ings of another.  These facts do  not  speak
                   against  either the basic notion of modular-
                   ity of grammar or  the  anatomical  analogy,
                   but  rather  suggest  that  the structure of
                   grammatical systems is to be compared with a
                   more  sophisticated view of the structure of
                   physical organic systems than has been popu-
                   larly employed.

                   The appropriate analogy is not only biologi-
                   cally more realistic, but also holds out the
                   hope of yielding better accounts of  certain
                   otherwise    puzzling    natural    language
                   phenomena.