The Culture vs Biology Experiment

[Steve Long]

In a message dated 12/3/02 3:00:34 AM, dan.everett at MAN.AC.UK writes:
<< It is an interesting research question to consider how we might (or if we
might) tease apart the different contributions from biology and culture to
human language development. >>

Well, the most obvious place to start such research would be by removing one
of the variables.  Since the cultural contribution would be far easier (not
necessarily ethically) to remove, the experiment is simple to conceptualize.

Take a normal new born human and raise him in as complete absence from any
contact with language as is possible, to some variable age x.   Then find out
a) what language he uses and b) what language learning capability he has, at
age x. (I.e, under controlled conditions, create the laboratory equivalent of
a "wolf boy.")

Of course, a new born is dependent upon other humans to a certain age or it
will not survive, so we cannot totally remove the "cultural" contribution.
If we mechanically nuture the baby without human contact, we run the risk of
"wire-mother" induced autism, I suppose.  This of course would indicate that
"human culture" might be mandatory to development of language in the sense at
least that it is mandatory to the new born's survival.

A second experiment admits that rudimentary language cannot be observed
without the presence of a speaker and a listener.  It assumes a social
function for language.

That's something interesting about the very early "experiments" that isolated
infants.  The purpose of those experiments was to ascertain things like what
the oldest language was, what the first word spoken would be or whether the
sacred language (normally Hebrew) was innate.  But the starting point had two
subjects included.

Herodotus describes the pharoah Psammetichus isolating TWO infants, not one.
The objective was to see what developed between two "culturally deprived"
infants.
When the infants spoke their first common word, however, the experiment was
over -- because it was ascertained based on that word that the infants were
speaking Phrygian.

More prolonged observation was done in the middle ages.  Apparently, James IV
of
Scotland ordered two boys confined to the Hebrides island of Inchkeith.  The
children apparently ended up speaking a language and it was Hebrew.  Other
reports of such experiments were not as positive, and it seems hard to
understand their results because the objective was never to ascertain whether
a "natural language" was spoken.  Even nomimalistic commentators who expected
"animal noises" were not looking for structure in those noises.

Functionalism would suggest that there are biological constraints on
language.  But it suggests this primarily because biological evolution is
just as molded by the dictates of the environment as learning and culture
are.

A functional biological-based language should look like a functional
cultural-based language.  They both solve the same problems.  We live in a
world with objects (nouns), processes (verbs) and attributes (adjectives and
adverbs).  Any language -- innate or cultural -- that does not make these
distinctions would not reflect the world we live in and should be
dysfunctional.

So, even if these human infants were not exactly born with such language
structure in their brains, they might have the "ingenuity" to invent a
language that functioned precisely the same way.  They would still however be
indebted to biology for brain complexity and vocal cords or hand dexterity to
make signs that allows complex language.

But in no way would we expect these subjects to use language to refer to a
wheel, a boat, Tuesdays, beer, marriage, cell phones, hamburgers or a
demonstrably neolithic concepts like bread or pottery.  They should have no
sense of abstracts.  No abstract names for colors.  The great mass of what
language carries for us would not be theirs.  Eons of human culture would be
absent.   And all this accumulated knowledge -- this enormous common cache of
tranferable information -- is what I think we are mainly doing when we use
"language".

Steve Long

PS - Here's Herodotus' account.  What is a little ironic here is that "bread"
may be a neolithic (within the last 10,000 years) invention.  So, even this
"first word" reflects a piece of late coming human technology:
"1] Now before Psammetichus became king of Egypt, the Egyptians believed that
they were the oldest people on earth. But ever since Psammetichus became king
and wished to find out which people were the oldest,...
[2] Psammetichus, when he was in no way able to learn by inquiry which people
had first come into being, devised a plan by which he took two newborn
children of the common people and gave them to a shepherd to bring up among
his flocks. He gave instructions that no one was to speak a word in their
hearing; they were to stay by themselves in a lonely hut, and in due time the
shepherd was to bring goats and give the children their milk and do
everything else necessary.
[3] Psammetichus did this, and gave these instructions, because he wanted to
hear what speech would first come from the children, when they were past the
age of indistinct babbling. And he had his wish; for one day, when the
shepherd had done as he was told for two years, both children ran to him
stretching out their hands and calling "Bekos!" as he opened the door and
entered.
[4] When he first heard this, he kept quiet about it; but when, coming often
and paying careful attention, he kept hearing this same word, he told his
master at last and brought the children into the king's presence as required.
Psammetichus then heard them himself, and asked to what language the word
"Bekos" belonged; he found it to be a Phrygian word, signifying bread.
....This is the story which I heard from the priests of Hephaestus' temple at
Memphis; the Greeks say among many foolish things that Psammetichus had the
children reared by women whose tongues he had cut out. "[Hmmm, a concern over
evidence contamination?!]