The Lupyan article starts with a broad statement -- the way I've been taught not to start my own papers. What's funny about this particular one is that it really sells itself short. Modern academic linguistics might have started approaching the problem of abstraction three hundred years ago, but we have been thinking about this problem for much longer in the realm of philosophy. I'm really curious about whether there exist books in linguistics that directly interact with philosophy, especially classical philosophy.
One of the problems Plato sought to solve with his theory of Forms was precisely that of abstraction: how come we seem to have knowledge of universal concepts when we are only ever exposed to particular instances of these objects?
Aristotle then postulated that we possess a logical technique or capacity by which we subtract that which is incidental to an object and come to consider that object "qua triangle" or "qua dog" -- disregarding that which defines that particular triangle or dog. It seems to me that one of the things Lupyan is showing us is this process in reverse: starting with a concept and instantiating particulars. Though "triangles" and "three-sided polygons" are coextensive, they are dissimilar enough such that what comes of them is not exactly the same.
Though I am somewhat familiar with modern philosophy that complicates this in a myriad ways, I'm still drawn to the clarity of Aristotle and of Aquinas, who later brought together Aristotelian notions into a kind of empiricism that explains how we derive all knowledge from the senses. I have never read relevant academic work in the sciences that deals with these ancients directly. This might be because they are treated through the lens of the moderns, but still, I would like to see them addressed and brought into this debate.
Regarding the Rickford, I was pleasantly surprised to find a paper that both did proper linguistics and also a critical meta-analysis of one particular branch and the real-world impact it was having or not having. I was particularly struck by the idea of teaching children who learn to speak AAVE to read AAVE first before delving into SE. These are old ideas, too, proposed at the turn of the 1970s. The paper then convincingly argued for this pedagogic shift, and I became really intrigued by all the implications it would have if implemented again.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteEven though you dont interact with the reading a lot, this is a incredibly interesting post. Approaching the same ideas with a philosophical lens really makes it apparent how old some of the ideas are about these fundamental questions are.
ReplyDeleteThe similarity between the idea of "form" and "prototype" is something I noticed in the reading as well, but I didn't realise how much more similar the idea of a qua triangle is to Lupyan's ideas.
I wonder what Aristotle would think about more of a null-qua system; Lupyan describes tables that are less-chair as more easily noticeable next to chairs, when compared to tables that are more table. So rather than shedding the specifics of an object in order to build an idea of what it is in general, shedding any information that is shared between this object and another (assuming they are not linked in some way).
I didn't think about the potential outcomes of re-implementing some of the proposals, but that definitely sounds like an interesting idea, especially given our expended modern linguistic toolkit.
I too value the interaction between fields as a means for garnering greater understanding. Aristotle's theory of the forms delves directly into this issue that linguists are attempting to answer through empirical evidence and the scientific method. Both Aristotle and Lupyan wrestle with the question of the ideal state of an object. But I would say that the distinction between the two actually lies in the approach and intent. Aristotle is trying to express a theory for the world around him whereas Lupyan is investigating a linguistic phenomenon. Lupyan is less interested in whether ideal abstract objects exist and more concerned with how the mind, as a symbolic system, represents words. Lupyan cares about the connection between the meaning of a word and the picture it conjures in one's mind.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, I think there is definitely an interplay between the two. In fact, Lupyan's research wrestles with the same overarching question that Aristotle explored. Perhaps, if we can understand our language systems, this will provide a means to think more deeply about such philosophical theories.
I found your connections to philosophy to be very interesting. As we learn more in this class I feel like the study of language provides so many incredible insights into how we think in general. I definitely agree with you in that some sort of study that connects linguistic studies to ancient philosophical thought would be a very interesting read!
ReplyDelete