Language and emergence "mechanisms"

Steve Long Salinas17 at AOL.COM
Fri Aug 13 00:48:09 UTC 1999


To FUNKNET:

I am an amateur at this and I hope you will all forgive my ignorance in this
post.  I am sending this to hopefully understand what I am misunderstanding.

tgivon at OREGON.UOREGON.EDU wrote:

<<The issue I did touch upon exists regardless of how you resolve the
evolutionary/genetic issue. Whether the underlying mechanisms are
language-specific or not, "emergence" during lifetime skilled learning either
does or doesn't have neuro-cognitive consequences (the creation of automated
structured during skill acquisition). My bias on this is obviously strong, as
I have stated. I would like to find empirical means of resolving this.>>

Regarding both questions:

Isn't there another way to approach both questions.  Borrowing some of the
"functionalism" from the science of biological evolution -

1. There must be per se "neuro-cognitive" consequences when "automated
skills" (specifically, language skills) emerge.  But, if we go by evolution
theory, these underlying mechanisms should be to some degree incidental to
the function of the "skills" being observed.

The governing principle would be the survival value of language itself, and
the mechanisms would be shaped by the demands of effective language
functions, including the physical, biological and human cultural demands.

By analogy, flight is a highly skilled behavior that can also be described as
"automated" but not limited to one species.  One of the  "mechanisms" of
flight is often wings.  Be they insect wings, feathered wings, bat wing
membranes or rigid aluminum airplane wings, all of them conform to the
demands of the physical laws regarding flight - these dictate what mechanisms
must "do" and therefore the possible structures they can take.

Functionally effective language, just like functionally effective flight,
must conform to the physical, biological, etc. dictates it finds in this
world.  E.g., if we define language as having anything to do with
communication between individuals, it must in some way overcome the needs of
human sensory organs - it must be audible, visuals, tactile, etc.

On the "neural-cognitive" level - the internal physical biochemical
mechanisms - the same rules would apply.  What must a brain (and its
relationship to the whole functioning of the human body) accomplish - what
MUST it be structured like to do "language" sucessfully.

One problem here is that although we can describe flight with some
particularity (along with its "survival value") and do it with a high degree
of confidence, we have trouble with "language."

We can say some things I think with certainty, however.  A primary function
of language is that it is interpersonal.  Which means that it must be
predictable to some degree over time.  I must have some certainty when you
speak a word that you are referring to the same thing you referred to last
time.  Or my speech is unpredictable, incoherent, and does not function as
language.

This means that routine, rout, automation is also to some degree a necessary
aspect of language - and an environmental demand on any biological mechanisms
of language.  Just like wings must conform to certain physical laws, a brain
must satisfy certain physical laws to be able to perform the "predictability"
function of language.  It must be able to repeat whatever it does
consistently.  Simple enough.  Computers do that.

But just as in flight, the specific manner (insect wings, bird wings, bat
wings, 747 wings) is somewhat incidental.  Divergent structures can serve the
same function.  And it's also important to realize that these "mechanisms"
did not necessarily arise to serve the function being observed (e.g.,
feathers and forelimbs did not evolve for flight, neither did aluminum
technology.)

So the mechanism is not necessarily determinative, the outcome is. And
language is highly functional.  If it (in an alternative universe) were
managed by the structures of our feet (lots of them, let's say and very
intricate) instead of our brains, its survival value as a trait would still
be a strong reason for it to emerge.

Also, to the extent that we are speaking of "grammar" as the morphology of
language - subject, predicate; noun, verb; tense, etc., - aren't these the
products first of all of the world we live in?  Isn't that why language is
shaped like it is, because of the reality it reflects?  Isn't there a
survival value in accurately discriminating between objects and actions, past
and present, etc., when speaking to another?  Doesn't the world we live in
ultimately determine the basic structure of our language, in order to acheive
effective predictable common reference?

How would effective human language be different if one did not posit any
inherited language trait?  Wouldn't it be pretty much the same, because that
is what communication regarding the real world demands?

The reason that airplane wings look like bird wings when soaring is because
they both serve the same function and conform to the same environmental
demands.  But bird wings are an inherited (genetic) trait, airplane wings are
not.  Shouldn't we expect the same convergence with language?  That the
demands of communication will shape language?  Rather than expecting that
some fortuitous internal structure determined what language is like.

2. With regard to "emergence" as well as I understand it, the same first
basic questions would be asked.  Any mechanism of genetic or individual
emergence can be assumed to have functional reasons for being.

The best analogy I can think of at the moment is the biological mechanisms of
childbirth.  What is the functional advantage of the not giving birth to
fully adult progeny?  What is the advantage of the pupae stage in some
organisms?

All of these are as connected to the survival needs of the parent as to the
progeny.  That is why I would look for the demands that are put on any
effective emergence mechanism by the needs of the group.  Are there
individual or interpersonal advantages in postponing language emergence?  Is
language merely a by-product of early physical dependency in humans (a
biological trait that fosters sociality in animals that may not otherwised be
pre-wired to be social?)

What has more survival value?  A prewired full-blown language-using human
individual from the time of birth (like some instanly communicationing
insects?)  Or one that goes through other, interpersonal processes before
language emerges?  Is language impossible without those interpersonal
processes?  And of course does language actually "emerge" or is it merely
awaiting proper physiological development?  The mechanisms of emergence might
become more identifiable if these functions are considered.

(Even if the experiment - the controlled removal from birth of all
interpersonal aspects of language from a human subject - is one we cannot
ethically perform.  In other words, if a human could only communicate with
himself from birth, without any advantage in communicating with another
human, would "language" emerge?  And what would it be like?)

Hope this makes some sense
and thanks,
Steve Long



More information about the Funknet mailing list