Intoning biology

[Daniel L. Everett]

Folks,

I would like to find a biological basis for human language/grammar as much
as the next person, but we are going to get no closer to this goal if we
talk aprioristically, nor if we make pronouncements on who does and who
does not have a license to practice biological reasoning (as Tom Givon is
wont to do).

Matthew Dryer asks us to:
>
> Consider the following analogy from biology.  Selection of
> combinations of features that are advantageous to survival leads to
> individuals with those features surviving more often.  But the fact
> that that combination of features is advantageous to survival is not
> itself represented in the genetic code or in the structures that
> result from their being advantageous.
>
> Matthew

Are you sure that the genetic code has no syntax?

But we are getting ahead of ourselves here. It is true that our research
on human language must be constrained by well-established parameters of
biologically relevant research, if that is what we want to relate to after
all is said and done (works like the new _Evolution of Communication_ by
Marc Hauser are thus a service to us all). But the starting point within
these parameters must be to first offer an account of the phenomena that
one thinks to be in need of explanation in the specific domain, e.g.
grammar. To the degree that such an account predicts other phenomena and
leads to a rich network of explanada and explanans that light our path in
new exploration (melodramatic metaphor, but it is Saturday morning after
all) we have something worth considering. Only after we have reached this
point can we begin to discuss meaningfully the biological significance or
implementation of our account. None of us, not even Tom G, knows what a
biological account of the facts will look like until we agree on the facts
to be explained, construct accounts for them, and evaluate the relative
worth of the competing accounts.

The point of my previous posting on methodology was to focus on how we do
research and evaluate it within our domains of interest. If we cannot
agree on the empirical success of competing accounts (or even what are
competing accounts) within grammar, we certainly cannot argue on which
one is biologically more plausible. Autonomy of syntax has to be
evaluated wrt grammatical explanations.

-- DLE