Hi,
I haven't read any of Dong's works, but I'm doing doctoral thesis to design (visualization) tools for generative linguists. I have read quite a lot of Chomsky and generative grammar stuff and done my master's thesis on related subject. I don't know if Pinker wrote about it, but I think that relevant for your research is this whole 'Linguistics Wars' dispute in 70's.
In late 60's Generative Grammar had made its breakthrough, and various researchers wanted to extend similar idea of specialized generative processing to semantics. Chomsky was strongly against it, seeing that semantics is by nature more 'messy' area: it looks like there is no limit what kind of stuff can go and affect semantic processing (it is clearly, deeply culturally influenced in every way possible) and it should wait until we have more reachable unknowns sorted out. People who were into 'Generative Semantics' disagreed, the discussion was heated and there has since been animosity between cognitive linguistics (generative semantics) and generative grammarians. There are few who are in good terms with both camps, maybe Ray Jackendoff who has looked if there is generative grammar -style inbuilt mechanisms for music.
There are historical reasons why crossovers you are looking are rare: cognitive semantics want to distance themselves from Chomsky and syntax, and generative grammar wants to keep a tight ship. For generative grammarians there is syntactic processing that interacts through interfaces with semantic and phonology, and what is researched is this syntactic processing. Proposing something like 'generative design grammar' would smell like generative semantics for syntactians and aggravatingly chomskyan for semanticians.
However, in generative grammar in last decade or two there have been rekindled interest to other cognitive systems that may share attributes with syntactic processing: the aim is to find the minimal difference that is required for human language capacity to evolve from known non-human-specific cognitive capacities. Recursion was one big hypothesis for mechanism that is necessary for syntax, and also found in some forms in other communication systems and maybe in things like animal navigation. Generative linguists tend to publish their more wide-reaching theories in open access journal 'Biolinguistics'. You should look that carefully.
If you want to argue for 'Design Capacity' and take a nativist stance to it, I think that important thing would be to limit the claim by saying what it is connected to; what are its interfaces and by those, what is *not* its responsibility and to what issues 'Design Capacity' is blind. E.g. you can argue for syntax/semantics division by basis of syntactically plural but semantically singular words like 'pants' and 'scissors'. For semantics (understanding these words as objects) we don't have trouble taking 'scissors' to mean one object, though the word is in plural. However, syntactic processing cannot opt out from plural marking and verbs etc. need to agree with that plural form, even when in the meaning level it is obvious that the sentence is about just singular thing. Are there such blind spots for design capacity? Veridicality could be one, though it is difficult to say when in human thought veridicality really kicks in.
I think you have enough to do with generative grammar alone, linguistics is such a wide field that 'Design and Language' would be as haphazard combination as 'Design and Physics'. 'Design and Liquid Flow Physics' would be much more promising goal.
Jukka
David Luxembourg <[log in to unmask]>
kirjoitti 2.6.2013 kello 1.59:
> Dear Klaus,
>
> Thank you for your email, I am not sure whether to reply off list or on list, as I (due to my short period in the list) cannot judge the relevance of this subject to other readers.
>
> My research's starting point in the work of Prof. Andy Dong. In my answer I will try to follow his terms and descriptions.
>
> " The cognitive capacity for language (aka Linguistic competence ) remains one of the most contested theories of human development. a key question is whether language is innate in the sense of Universal Grammar (UG) shared by all humans, suggesting that UG is encoded genetically, or whether language is purely an empirically evolved (human) phenomenon. In the one camp are the so-called Linguistic Nativists, starting with Noam Chomsky and more recently Steven Pinker with his book The Language Instinct. In the other camp are the empiricists , most forcefully argued by Geofrey Sampson and his response to Pinker's Book specifically and Nativism broadly, in his book The Language instinct debate." Dong (2009, p.175-6)
>
> This paragraph is the reasoning behind my choice of words.
>
> I do not understand your use of the verb 'to abstract' in your question. I am not sure I am the authority to decide or indicate what is ordinary linguistic practices are.
>
> I myself am more inclined towards Pinker concept of 'Mentalese' which suggest a strong link between the structure of language and the structure of thought.
>
> Josef Greenberg together (if i may use this term) with Roman Jakobson pioneered the field of Universal Linguistics and mass comparison of languages. I believe Greenberg's Universal Patterns can suggest, metaphorically speaking, a thing or two about design.
>
> Through abductive reasoning I am working and creating a description of Design (or maybe better term is Design Competence) along the approach taken by Pinker. I am interested in putting the relationship between design and language into a serious debate by making a small first step.
>
> David
>
> source:
> Dong A.(2009) the language of design. Springer-verlag Ltd. London
>
> +++
> Yoad David Luxembourg
>
> Designing the intangible,
> Design Metaphysics
>
> On 1-6-2013 21:34, Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
>> joad,
>> i am not sure what you mean by nativist perspectives when you cite linguists who deliberately abstract from ordinary linguistic practices.
>> klaus
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jun 1, 2013, at 2:09 PM, "Yoad David Luxembourg" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all
>>>
>>> As a part of my PhD investigations I am abductively constructing design according to nativist point of view of language/linguistics. This is done in order to examine the relationship between the human capacity of design and of language and open it for debate. My position is based substantially on Andy Dongs work – (2009) The Language of Design. Springer- Verlag Ltd., London. I am interested to know about any projects, articles and essays that connect between design and the works of Chomsky (UG, GG) Pinker (linguistic nativism – as argued in his book 'The Language Instinct') and the field of universal linguistics (pioneers by Josef Greenberg).
>>>
>>> I know this maybe tough to understand, I am having hard time trying to explain this project in the most short and concise method. If something remains unclear please mail me personally and I will try and elaborate on my work.
>>>
>>> Many thanks!
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>> +++
>>> Yoad David Luxembourg
>>>
>>> Designing the Intangible,
>>> Design Metaphysics
>>>
>>> www.yoad.info
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
>>> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
>> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
>> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
