Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   how did our language derive from nothing?
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 76 of 83 (324856)
06-22-2006 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by rgb
06-22-2006 1:03 AM


Re: The grammar organ - is there one?
rgb writes:
You haven't answered my question at all. All I said was that these kids living in those areas speak in what appears to me to be broken English and disjointed sentences. You then said that you found it hard to believe that these kids were speaking the way I described it. Yet, now you are admitting that it was possible for these kids to have learned a different dialect. Then you went on to describe what you thought was my expectation. While what you said is true, I still don't see how that answered my question.
So, let me ask again. Why do you think my assessment of how these kids in those areas talk was not entirely accurate?
I think it is unfair to describe their sentences as being disjoint or ungrammatical. They are likely to be perfectly formed sentences acording to the local dialect grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by rgb, posted 06-22-2006 1:03 AM rgb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by rgb, posted 06-22-2006 1:24 PM fallacycop has replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 77 of 83 (324860)
06-22-2006 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by nwr
06-21-2006 11:36 PM


Re: The grammar organ - is there one?
nwr writes:
I'm not claiming to be able to prove a negative. At present, I don't see that a hypothesized grammar organ explains anything, and I can find no evidence that there is such.
I guess most researchers take the ease with which young kidds learn a language as evidence for it. I also remember seeing many other lines of evidence in Steven Pinker's book "The Language Instinct" which were quite convincing. One that springs back to my mind is the fact that some people are born with specific languages impairment which does not prevent them from performing in any other areas in an observable way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by nwr, posted 06-21-2006 11:36 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by nwr, posted 06-22-2006 1:08 PM fallacycop has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 78 of 83 (324865)
06-22-2006 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by fallacycop
06-22-2006 12:48 PM


Re: The grammar organ - is there one?
nwr writes:
I'm not claiming to be able to prove a negative. At present, I don't see that a hypothesized grammar organ explains anything, and I can find no evidence that there is such.
I guess most researchers take the ease with which young kidds learn a language as evidence for it.
Not really. Some do, and some don't.
I also remember seeing many other lines of evidence in Steven Pinker's book "The Language Instinct" which were quite convincing.
Whereas I tend to think of Pinker's book as an evo-psych fairy tale.
Pinker gets mixed reviews in the literature. There is a deep split here. It is, in part, a split between rationalist philosophy and empiricist philosophy. Pinker and other Chomskyans are on the rationalist side, and consider much of knowledge to be innate. Those on the empiricist side consider knowledge to mostly be acquired by experience. I'm on the empiricist side, except that I think traditional empiricist philosophy is a bit wacky.
One that springs back to my mind is the fact that some people are born with specific languages impairment which does not prevent them from performing in any other areas in an observable way.
Nobody denies that there are physiological changes that evolved that are important to language. What is argued is the nature of those changes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by fallacycop, posted 06-22-2006 12:48 PM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by fallacycop, posted 06-23-2006 3:46 AM nwr has not replied

  
rgb
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 83 (324873)
06-22-2006 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by fallacycop
06-22-2006 12:38 PM


Re: The grammar organ - is there one?
fallacycop writes
quote:
I think it is unfair to describe their sentences as being disjoint or ungrammatical. They are likely to be perfectly formed sentences acording to the local dialect grammar.
But they are disjointed and ungrammatical, based on proper English of course.
So, do you doubt that they talk that way or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by fallacycop, posted 06-22-2006 12:38 PM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by fallacycop, posted 06-23-2006 3:49 AM rgb has replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 80 of 83 (325163)
06-23-2006 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by nwr
06-22-2006 1:08 PM


Re: The grammar organ - is there one?
nwr writes:
Nobody denies that there are physiological changes that evolved that are important to language. What is argued is the nature of those changes.
If there were physiological changes that evolved that are specifically important to language, what would be the point of not calling those physiological changes a language organ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by nwr, posted 06-22-2006 1:08 PM nwr has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 81 of 83 (325165)
06-23-2006 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by rgb
06-22-2006 1:24 PM


Re: The grammar organ - is there one?
rgb writes:
But they are disjointed and ungrammatical, based on proper English of course.
Yes. and they are also ungrammatical based on german, polish, arabic, sanscrit and any other language but for the local dialect, for that matter. What's the point in that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by rgb, posted 06-22-2006 1:24 PM rgb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by rgb, posted 06-23-2006 1:18 PM fallacycop has replied

  
rgb
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 83 (325347)
06-23-2006 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by fallacycop
06-23-2006 3:49 AM


Re: The grammar organ - is there one?
fallacycop writes
quote:
What's the point in that?
Your position's always seemed to be that there's some kind of grammar machine in each person. Yet, we have a clear example that contradict this claim. What we consider to be grammatically correct, even in the same language, varies from one group to another. If there is such a grammar machine, shouldn't the grammar in a language be universal with all communities speaking that language?
I see ebonics as an example of what nwr has been trying to say, that grammar in a language is based on centuries of language evolution and not based on any particular grammar rule. Linguists try to impose these rules onto the language, but more often than not these rules just don't fit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by fallacycop, posted 06-23-2006 3:49 AM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by fallacycop, posted 06-24-2006 1:20 AM rgb has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 83 of 83 (325560)
06-24-2006 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by rgb
06-23-2006 1:18 PM


Re: The grammar organ - is there one?
rgb writes:
Your position's always seemed to be that there's some kind of grammar machine in each person. Yet, we have a clear example that contradict this claim.
I don't think so
What we consider to be grammatically correct, even in the same language, varies from one group to another. If there is such a grammar machine, shouldn't the grammar in a language be universal with all communities speaking that language?
No.
I see ebonics as an example of what nwr has been trying to say, that grammar in a language is based on centuries of language evolution and not based on any particular grammar rule. Linguists try to impose these rules onto the language, but more often than not these rules just don't fit.
that's a failing of the atempt to cast human languages inside a rigidly ruled structure. Not necessarily a failing of the idea that human beings make use of mental structures evolved specifically for the purpose of dealing with human language.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by rgb, posted 06-23-2006 1:18 PM rgb has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024