Gurdur

You're not the only one.

In essence, linguistic universals are hotly debated and cover a large field.

Follow me please:

<ol type="1">[*]Language is grammar.
.[*]Grammatical language is only a small sub-set of all possible communication.
.[*]Human languages are only a small sub-set of all possible grammatical languages.
.[*]Linguistic universals are elements that are (putatively) common to all human languages.
.[*]Linguistic universals fall into different categories:
-- morphological
-- syntactical
-- phonological / kinetic

and of course
-- semantic, combined with any of the three above.[/list=a]

just what is a genuine linguistic universal of any particular element can be very hotly debated.

copernicus

One of my linguistic mentors was David Stampe, who founded his own (non-generative) school of linguistics. Regarding universals, he put it this way. Suppose everyone died except speakers of Amharic (which has some rather unusual grammatical properties). That would make all features of Amharic de facto universals. So it isn't really very interesting to point out that all languages have some particular structural trait. What is of interest is how they came to have such a trait. It is true that genetic transmission could just build this linguistic property into a human brain. But very often that is just one possible explanation.

The best work on language universals, IMHO, has been done by typologists in the <a href="http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/report/news/may16/greenberg-516.html" target="_blank">Greenbergian tradition</a>. Chomsky's approach to language universals is much more abstract, arguing that the existence of so many structural universals must mean that humans are born with a kind of mental machine that churns out and evaluates grammatical analyses. Nobody really argues anymore with Chomsky's claim that human language is innate, nor was Chomsky the first to make such a claim. The debate turns on the nature of explanation--whether it is legitimate to claim that these traits are explained by Chomsky's innate "Universal Grammar" (UG).

Here is an interesting universal of the type that Greenberg (as modified by others) discovered: Human languages divide into those in which direct objects typically follow the verb (e.g. English, Arabic, Swahili) and those in which objects typically precede the verb (Japanese, Hindi, Turkish). If a language has prepositions and prefixes, then it will tend to fall into the first category--verbs preceding objects. If a language has postpositions and suffixes, it will tend to fall into the latter category--verbs following objects. Chomsky's theory of linguistics does not really explain why this is, although a lot of generative linguists have tried to use it to claim certain things about the putative "Universal Grammar" that we are allegedly born with. Stampe came up with what I regard as a more interesting claim--that syllable structure and prosody tend to play a more important role than inherited grammars in which side of words get eroded away more quickly. The "handedness" of humans might well be attributable to the genetic lottery, but the "handedness" of human languages may well have a different explanation.

[ May 19, 2002: Message edited by: copernicus ]</p>

phaedrus

Gurdur..

Will respond later....but for starters, this would help me in understanding your position.

In what context ?
Please specify your question a bit more.

Err...what exactly do you mean by "what context?" Isnt this is a thread which is talking about SOD ? What do you want me to specify?

JP

DRFseven

What do you think of the "semantical/proximal" theory? By this, I mean the idea that the evolutionary innateness of language lies in the brain's layering of semantical areas first, which were naturally drafted into service by the actual proto-language functional areas, which were given a boost from proximal stuctures, such as involved in manual dexterity.

Ierrellus

Language And Mind--Chomsky (1972 enlarged edition):

"The assumption that human language evolved from more primitive systems is developed in an interesting way by Karl Popper in his recently published Arthur Compton Lecture, "Clouds and Clocks". He tries to show how problems of freedom of will and Cartesian dualism can be solved by the analysis of this 'evolution'." (p67).

After discrediting then current studies of chimpanzee abstractions and calling Lilly's dophin studies "science fiction", Chomsky goes for the jugular against Popper. Chomsky states that lower stages of language becoming higher stages with evolution presents gaps which have no logical transitions. He is adamantly Cartesian.

IMO, I wonder if Chomsky is siding with theists who espouse total human separation from evolution.
The theory you present, DRFseven, at least allows for the continuity of evolutionary developments.

SOD is possibily a structural imperative.

Ierrellus

[ May 20, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>

Gurdur

No, but Chomsky is famous for being extremely unwilling to consider biological evolutionary "step-by-step" explanations of the evolution of language. and prefers some vague engineering model of the emergence of language instead.

Ever since Steven Pinker hopped onto the evolutionary bandwagon and made it look like he was the founder of the language evolution school (something I rather hold against him), the resultant Pinker/Chomsky debates (with others helping in) are rather famous and heated.

[ May 20, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

DRFseven

Hmmm; Chomsky's argument against evolutionary bootstrapping in language reminds me a little of the creationist argument against evolution of a complex eye! Really, though, I have no way of criticizing Chomsky; I know very little about the evolution of language. What I referred to as the "semantical/proximal" theory is my hunch, but I'm well aware that I'm not qualified to have a hunch, LOL. However, the subject is fascinating and I'm all ears (or eyes), so I hope you knowledgeable guys carry on.

Dee

Adrian Selby

"No, but Chomsky is famous for being extremely unwilling to consider biological evolutionary "step-by-step" explanations of the evolution of language"

If I can butt in, a book I read by Gerald Edelman 'Bright Air, Brilliant Fire' examined the importance of the vocal chords and the mechanism by which some part of the 'voicebox' dropped as it were, allowing more control over the noises that mankind could make, and thus allowing for more complex articulation for differentiating messages, such as commands, observations, objects etc. and that this development in our evolution was primarily responsible for the ability to improve the level of communication such that one could begin to call it a vocabulary.

I think he may have gone on to suggest that this development partly caused development in the brain associated with the emerging vocabulary and recognition of these first 'words'.

(NB I daresay I'm using all the wrong descriptive terms here, but hopefully you get what I'm saying)

Adrian

phaedrus

Gurdur

Ahh well, you havent phrased SOD yet (wonder why), in a bit of hurry, but anyhow here goes. I would be still interested in what you think is SOD in your words.

As I've already explicitly replied in this thread (to James Still), yes.

Ahh, never harms to reconfirm, especially in today's world where change seems to the only constant we have. Btw if it is innate, why does it take time to appear in children?

Non-verbal communication is capable of disputing and agreement, though not the transfer of abstract concepts.

Care to elaborate? And this is among human beings?

Take a look at dog and chimp mirror experiments; chimps are capable of recognizing that a reflection is of themselves, dogs are not.
An SOD differention in cognition there, I believe ?

You meant differentiation? And why are we now shifting towards animals and not talking about non-verbal communication and SOD among human beings? And btw, the mirror test throws light on SOD or self-concept?

In what context ?
Please specify your question a bit more.

Err...what exactly do you mean by "what context?" Isnt this is a thread which is talking about SOD ? So you are saying there is an innate SOD in all of us inspite of our cultural/historical/linguistic grounding? How exactly would you phrase the subject/object distinction? The first question is asking you whether you think inspite of our various groundings, the SOD is innate =&gt; which means do you think that your cherished notion of SOD overrides our groundings in the way we deal with or view the world around us? The second question is self-explanatory i hope?

Pardon me, but my own poetic language is at fault here.
SOD is deeply cognitively based, and finally results from a seperation of the individual from the enviroment.
Grammar is deeply based, annd results from the development of specialised circuits.
Grammar simply transfers the result of cognition; SOD as a conscious concept results from the evolution of self-consciousness, and it is possible that grammar itself when used communicatively in the transfer of abstract concepts requires firstly the evolution of self-consciousness.

Umm, your earlier statement was No; the two go together - they have at the end a common cause, if you like. How does your explanation above throw light on the common cause at the end?

Now you make rather interesting statements.... SOD results because of a separation of the individual from the environment????? What do you mean?

Do you feel that coherent speech and Grammar are the same? Coz my original query was on coherent speech if i am not wrong...

Grammar requiring evolution of self-consciousness....is that like saying to a species to be able to construct a mode of communication with a grammatical structure, they need to be self-conscious or they need to evolved to a particular level?

Yep. (regarding meditation et al)

Are they incapable coz they are meditating (ie., performing a different task) or in the state of meditation they cant perform any tasks?

I mean: mostly.
A person on LSD may express great anxiety at the perceived feelings of loss of ego, of self-identity; oddly, such a person will still use the words "I", "me", "my".
A person extremely skilled in meditation can acheive the "melting-in" with the enviroment, and be able to describe it coherently at that moment.
Some drugs, such as from various species of the Datura and Solonacae families, can induce an exalted state where the ego is not felt to disappear, but becomes rather hidden, while the person is able to speak at great lengths on quite complex matters, if somewhat without rigour.

So as a rule, people who are in state of meditation cant perform any task or make coherent speech , but as an exception can do the same? Any idea why the exceptions arise?

Yes.
(more or less)

More or less?

I believe I excused infancy from this all before.

So infants might view through SOD and can learn SOD as they grow up and then "envisage" different ways? Any idea why infants dont seem to exhibit awareness of SOD if SOD is supposed to be innate?

Furthermore, various psycholinguistic experiments seem to show a marked embryonic SOD in very young infants.

Could you elaborate?

You tell me, and we'll fight it out here

I believe i have already stated it (before the questions that is) And "fight" ?

JP

[ May 21, 2002: Message edited by: phaedrus ]</p>

DRFseven

And why do feral and isolated children never talk, even when they grow up together under conditions of extreme social deprivation? The sexual urge is innate and infants don't display it, yet even isolated children will display it as they mature. For this reason I think of language as an opportunistic innate potential rather than an innate ability.