LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for TSE Archives


TSE Archives

TSE Archives


TSE@PO.MISSOURI.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TSE Home

TSE Home

TSE  November 2004

TSE November 2004

Subject:

Re: Analogy

From:

Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

T. S. Eliot Discussion forum.

Date:

Mon, 1 Nov 2004 13:49:49 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (83 lines)

The Chomsky/Pinker claims about the biological basis of language are
just that:  a basis.  They are based on many facts:  the universality of
speech in humans for which the only exceptions seem to be extremely rare
cases in which no language was heard in childhood: the fact that there
are specific areas in the brain that, if damaged, remove specific
language abilities (until very recent technology to scan brains, doctors
relied on language capacities to know what part of a brain was damaged);
the fact--noted by Carroll--that children will construct a complete
language from pidgin in one generation; the fact that all known
languages have similar "deep structures" of formation regardless of any
connection between the speakers.

What it means is not at all a mechanical inheritance of words or even
particular syntax patterns but an immense capacity for creativity.  From
about 10 (studies give slightly different numbers apparently) basic
sentence patterns in English--which any native speaker knows--an
infinite number of actual sentences can be constructed.

There is nothing simplistic or simply inherited except the capacity for
language and an apparently universal creation of it in humans.  Now we
are aware that at least some aspects of it are also present in other
animals, especially chimps and bonobos, but there is a question about
whether they ever construct syntax, as opposed to recognize it.

This is all fascinating, but it cannot be discussed by just challenging
biology:  it  is not like inheriting brown eyes or blond hair.
Nancy

>>> [log in to unmask] 11/01/04 11:48 AM >>>
Tom Gray wrote:
>
> One function of DNA is to provide the heritable basis
> for biological entities. It would be difficult to
> consider words doing the same thing. It is a common
> observation in popular books on language that children
> exposed only to a pigdin will construct (collectively?
> ) a full language from it. It would seem from this
> that language is not learned from listening to the
> words but is inherent in the human brain.
>
> The heritable basis for language lies in the heritable
> basis for brain strcuutre. The DNA of language is DNA.
>

The biological basis of language is the flexibility and general
capability of the human mind. Dating of human evolution changes
constantly, but one dating by the anthropologist Tattersall estimates
biologically modern humans go back about a 100K years, language about 40
thousand. Tattersall speculates (no non-speculative evidence either for
or against this) that language was probably invented by children,
_several times_, before it was picked up by adults.

He instances as evidence for the _possibility_ of this a 'tribe' of
monkeys living near the sea, whose food often was sandy as they found
it. Young monkeys began to wash it in the sea. Gradually female monkeys
began to emulate this practice. The old males never did. After a
generation or so it became a "cultural" inheritance of that group of
monkeys. (The behavior was specific to that group -- _not_ to the
species as a whole.) Clearly that species had the biological
(neurological) _capacity_ to learn to wash their food, but the practice
was not in the least specifically "inherent" in their brain. The
_capacity_ for language, similarly, but not language itself is "inherent
in the human brain."

Carrol

P.S. A 'tribe' of baboons was in the habit of raiding a garbage dump in
a particular area. On one occasion the food-stuff was poisonous. Now
baboons, typically, are an aggressive species with a strong hierarchical
social relations. It happened that the "Alpha" males got all the
poisoned food, so all that was left were the 'inferior' members of the
'tribe," the females, and the young. Hierarchy and aggressiveness
disappeared in this group of baboons -- AND IT CONTINUED TO BE
NON-HIERARCHICAL and NON-AGGRESSIVE in subsequent generations. Moreover,
baboons from OTHER groups who joined this group as adults adopted the
'culture' of this group and dropped their preceding aggressiveness.

Very few things are _directly_  and mechanically inherited in most
mammal species, and this is especially so of primates, and most
especially so of homo sapiens. Capacities are inherited. Young rats
whose mothers lick them develop curiosity and courage; they are
exploratory. Young rats whose mothers do not lick them are incurious and
timid.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



PO.MISSOURI.EDU

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager