Mara kiemazzu, ni mjenearem kakem seko ak zeltag jem vo jicy mirijajaza temamje kakem seko ak jer mjeaem jeintaekko teggvosy istda ni jaeraz tejat nered a istda angezdavo temamje alizlog grakeazzu, zneg jakgoa ni jema arlama ak jidainemazzije nikram jenla jatagt:
the neural structures that “define” the meaning of a word appear to be the ones that are relevant in real life. Neuroimaging studies show that when we think of a word, the concepts that are coded by a word result in the activation of the brain mechanisms that concern the real-world attributes of the word in question. For example, the PET data of Martin et al. (1995b) show that the primary motor cortex implicated in manual
motor control is activated when we think of the name of a hand tool.
Ni riza ak ni jataz glagzea ta ni segoremaz-tinredaz-migoremaz sermeseko istda angezda temamje jicy tucja jezti teggvonko istda tucjamrem seamajaezsevo grakeazzije alizlog. Ni mirenarije zeka-temmgorejg kejmreneko ak ni niecz, mjearuj, strida, jicy jidainemaz seinmineovniko ak ni TLSy jan adatag, tvazzivtag, jicy jandajetag:
The major problem that has vexed studies of the evolution of language is that human beings are presently the single living species to possess complex linguistic ability. The archaic hominids who may have possessed intermediate stages of linguistic ability are extinct. While evidence from genetics and comparative anatomy shows that living apes appear to retain many of the features that characterized the common ancestor that they shared with humans, apes clearly do not have the ability to acquire all aspects of human linguistic ability.
The apparent gulf between the communicative abilities of living apes and human language has led to the claim that the neural bases of human language are disjointed from those involved in vocal communications of apes (e.g., Burling, 1993), and to incorrect assertions that apes lack any vestige of linguistic ability (e.g., Terrace et al., 1979; Pinker, 1994). This in turn leads to theories that postulate abrupt discontinuities, or “stages,” in the evolution of human language such as “protolanguage” that lacked syntax (Bickerton, 1990), or to claims that language could have not have evolved by means of Darwinian processes (Chomsky, 1976, 1986).
Nita kejmreneko jan, jako Karvta (1859) jicy jidainetnko temje jako Jageko (1949) jizak, jonmogog jaije ni jenla TLN. Ta jem vo jicy javjagom jenla taklant, ni zaruj jako mitseyzjog sezita si ni jata ak ni takezz. Omjem tvazzivtag, ni taklasy zaruj nilvo emvarkt, kigontag jed regjesy taz omseje ni ijmovtag si ni jita. Taklant, jem vo, jicy lerneazzije jezez ijrana nannazko sela teneznlaietzije krtak go tvazziv jazz meamvo ak tizecy kicy omjeza nije jandaje. Ni ziv mitseyzam ak ni
jekeznzeka jenla zaruj, jicy ni tjeama jicy mitseyzam ak ni jenla snegea, jamvotseda tizekko jicy zekekko jatag mirimazzog matsy ni ijmovtag si ni zaruj. Kigoaegm nadazana zikgog ta ni zaruj anteznko ta kadaje:
Some attention has been drawn to the identification of a putative “language gene” that has been interpreted as evidence for the claim by Chomsky (1986) that the syntactic “rules” of all human languages are determined by an innate neural mechanism (Gopnik, 1990; Gopnik and Crago, 1991; Pinker, 1994). Over the course of many years, Chomsky (1966, 1972, 1986) developed the theory of “universal
grammar” (UG). No person would dispute that human beings have an innate capacity to acquire language. It is clear that neurologically intact
infants and children raised under “normal” circumstances have the biological capacity to learn any language. However, Chomsky (1966, 1972, 1986) goes further, claiming that the detailed syntax of all human languages is an innate attribute of the human brain.
Sejevtag jako jezti zvoko akkemeovsy ta ni tjegozana jenla niecz; ijena zacz jan serivkog, jicy nizarko sela jamina jonmamzacy jicy takamzak, antezrejg ta kadaje ta ni joj atovma ak kovnaz tazarlovrene:
Virtually all theoretical linguists have focused on syntax as the defining aspect of human language. Many linguists have claimed that syntax is totally absent in the communication of other species and propose that “protolanguage,” that lacked any aspect of syntax, constituted the early stages of hominid language (e.g., Bickerton, 1990; Calvin and Bickerton, 2000; Pinker, 1994). This position is perhaps based on the erroneous claim of Terrace et al. (1979), who stated that chimpanzees using American Sign Language (ASL) were simply imitating the signs used by their human attendants. This clearly was not the case, since the chimpanzees in the study by Gardner and Gardner (1969) were observed signing the names of objects pictured in magazines that they were “reading” by themselves in much the same manner as young children.
Ni nezije jema ancj tazamrela jekllanaga istda ni jenla TLSy ueazkko jako si ovjelama ni rijaetnjvoko ak temamje anmamrene; jed jenla kama, snegea, jicy mjearuj jan jamvotarije si mirikema ni kelanaz livaz [e] omjemje jako ji ijmrenaz tegjaz kigo ni manaetrejg, jeuzigo varemazzije mirensela jaeraz mirimvoko kigo vorendatag TLSy zovgcz.
Steko ueazkko ni senemzetyzam istda temamje seinnejemdayzam jeako jed zneg alizerenearije jetngou, mirijajazije azanatag jamk si ni arzevosy mjeatvo ak jeintaecy alizerene. Nian omiezcy jeala jaov ji tazamrela jeklilanaga kigo ni anzacjyzam ak laredayzjko istda ueazkog ni nikram jenla TLSy ta ni joj atovma ak tina kigon ak temamje. Temamje istda zamkog ni ijmrenaz livazko [a], [e] jicy [e] ak jenla temamje trezz omiezcy jeala tekkemog jako jed nalako ak ramecy limaz seinnejemdayzje:
Neuropsychological evidence clearly indicates some differentiation in language function between posterior, temporal brain regions and anterior, frontal regions. The English regular and irregular past tenses seem to differ in their dependence on these two regions. We argue that
this is because regular inflected forms in English are morpho-phonologically complex, and this engages specialised frontal parsing mechanisms.
Se omiezcy jisy jeala jaov jako rargo-kana jako nikram jenla temamje, jaesy se jonearazvoko omiezcy jeala jaov jed nogen kigo ramecy limaz takgondayzam sirlatkra. Jaesy jako seinmardaela jekevo ak zeltag jem vo tjeiv, jije kigon ak lizecjarije temamje jamvotsedavo jed jaeraz tejat nered a istda sela zarj, takeovma, jicy aameza jed traevo ak seinmza ningo jem nt. Stet, jakgoa ni alizerene ak ni nikram jenla TLN, ni jaeraz tejat nered a istda takeovmvo ni ningo mdazarm govradagoko istda govrada temamje netsy jeala jaov ta mizama:
When we talk about language and about English, Igbo, or whatever any other language, we need to emphasize that we do not refer to the same phenomenon. Language is totally different from the word language as used in expressions such as English or Hebrew language.
Ta tjegon, temamje zamktag ni kezz mjenearem erlaga ak nikram jenlako netsy jeala jaov ni nika ak ztagetrem seinnejemdayzje.
Ta ni joj atovma ak tina kigon ak temamje, nian omiezcy jeala jaov ji tazamrela jeklilanaga kigo ni jidainemaz kalazimnovsy ak ni kama, takezz, jicy limaz sramsy istda narkko jidainemazzije nikram jenla jatagt.
Jerko liste:
1 Pinker, S. and Ullman,M.T. (2002) The past and future of the past tense. Trends Cogn. Sci. 6, 456–463; and Reply to McClelland and Patterson. Trends Cogn. Sci. 6, 472–474
2 McClelland, J.L. and Patterson, K. (2002) Rules or connections in past tense inflections: what does the evidence rule out? Trends Cogn. Sci. 6,
465–472; and Reply to Pinker and Ullman. Trends Cogn. Sci. 6, 464–465
3 Marslen-Wilson, W.D. and Tyler, L.K. (1998) Rules, representations,
and the English past tense. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2, 428–435
4 Tyler, L.K. et al. (2002) Dissociations in processing past tense
morphology: neuropathology and behavioural studies. J. Cogn. Neurosci.
14, 79–94
5 Tyler, L.K. Randall, B. and Marslen-Wilson, W.D. (2002) Phonology
and neuropsychology of the English past tense. Neuropsychologia 40,
1154–1166
6 Marslen-Wilson, W.D. and Tyler, L.K. (1997) Dissociating types of
mental computation. Nature 387, 592–594
7 Marslen-Wilson, W. et al. (2000) Associations and dissociations in the
processing of regular and irregular verbs: electrophysiological evidence.
J. Cogn. Neurosci. 55E
Diarko liste:
1 Edelman, S. and Christiansen, M.H. (2003) How seriously should we
take Minimalist syntax? Trends Cogn. Sci. 7, 60–61
2 Lasnik, H. (2002) Theminimalist program in syntax. Trends Cogn. Sci.
6, 432–437
3 Levelt, W.J.M. (1974) Formal Grammars in Linguistics and Psycholinguistics, Mouton
4 The Binding Problem. (2000) Special Issue of Neuron, Vol. 24(1)
5 Fodor, J.A. et al. (1974) The Psychology of Language, McGraw-Hill
6 MacDonald, M.C. (1989) Priming effects from gaps to antecedents.
Lang. Cogn. Process. 4, 1–72
7 Pickering, M. and Barry, G. (1991) Sentence processing without empty
categories. Lang. Cogn. Process. 6, 229–259
8 Clahsen, H. and Featherston, S. (1999) Antecedent priming at trace
positions: evidence from German scrambling. J. Psycholinguist. Res.
28, 415–437
9 Thornton, R. and Wexler, K. (1999) Principle B, VP Ellipsis and
Interpretation in Child Grammar, MIT Press
10 Pinker, S. (1989) Learnability and Cognition, MIT Press
11 Kluender, R. and Kutas, M. (1993) Bridging the gap: evidence from
ERPs on the processing of unbounded dependencies. J. Cogn. Neurosci.
5, 196–214
12 Osterhout, L. and Mobley, L.A. (1995) Event-related brain potentials
elicited by failure to agree. J. Mem. Lang. 34, 739–773
13 McDaniel, D. et al. (1996) Methods for Assessing Children’s Syntax,
MIT Press
14 Crain, S. and Thornton, R. (1998) Investigations in Universal
Grammar, MIT Press
15 Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, MIT Press
16 Hauser, M.D. et al. (2002) The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298, 1569–1579
