Talk:Biolinguistics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Question

What do Fibonacci sequences and the Golden Mean have to do with anything?

Answer

Extract from: Carnie, Medeiros. "Tree Maximization and the Generalized Extended Projection". Coyote Working Papers 14, University of Arizona

....."At the same time, important work in the philosophical foundations of Minimalism has suggested that universal syntactic principles, in particular those governing the simple, mathematical computational system, should follow from general physical principles that govern the way biological systems emerge in the phenotype. For example, Uriagereka (1997) has claimed that linguistic structures exhibit the mathematical properties of the “Golden Mean” as exhibited, for example, in the Fibonacci Sequence (0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, etc). In this speculative squib, we observe that one particular Fibonacci-like sequence in tree structures which are maximized in terms of specifiers and complements might explain why languages aim towards filled specifiers as stipulated by the generalized EPP.".....

[edit] To Geoffrey Sampson

You are saying: 'Ordinary speakers regularly do say things which the nativists claim nobody ever says, and systematically fail to say things which the nativists claim people often say. In speaking the way they find natural, the population at large blows the nativist case to pieces.'

Comment:

One MUST NOT forget about a distinction between linguistic performance, people's speech actions, and linguistic competence - the knowledge a grammar exemplified in those speech actions. The proper object of Chomskyan linguistics is competence and not performance, and its highest aim is the modelling of linguistic competence - something which is mentally represented. Performance is a different kind of study and, second, performance is the reflection of not just one but at least several competences. The explanation of variation in any given speech action will have to incorporate numerous - psychological, social, etc. - causes. No wonder people 'fail to say things' that belong in the domain of competence, not performance. -- Biolinguist (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag

This concerns POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. From WP tag policy: Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)