Feral children and enculturated apes

[Dan Everett]

The issues involved in teasing apart the different contributions from
culture and biology are not as easy as the thought experiments proposed by
Long and Katz.

The problem is that biology needs environment to emerge. Walking, seeing,
speaking, and various other skills we take for granted as biological need
environment, like a plant needs water and sunlight for photosynthesis -
chlorophyll is not enough. Therefore, to show instances of retarded
development due to lack of environmental stimuli does not distinguish
between culture and biology. Biology requires environment. So does
culture. So environment itself will not distinguish them.

To take a Chomskyan example, though this works for any theory, what does
the theory assume/claim/predict to be part of our genetic heritage,
whether in a special language module or as part of our general cognitive
capabilities? Let's say, to take an example from Chomsky's 50s research,
that embedding is claimed to be a very important part of human language
and that we find, subsequently, a language without embedding. Does this
tell us anything about biology? How does it? How could it?

It could tell us about biology, about processing requirements, about
culture, many other things. No simple thought experiment is likely to be
of help. These are extremely complex issues conceptually. In fact, they
are unlikely to have a solution for the most part. Standard pragmatist
(Jamesian in particular) approaches to scientific research offer some
guidelines, but they are (rightfully) very subjective.

The dichotomy, once again, is to some degree spurious. Hence the problem.

Dan


**************************************************************

Daniel L. Everett
Professor of Phonetics and Phonology
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester, UK
M13 9PL
dan.everett at man.ac.uk
Office Phone: 44-161-275-3158
Department Phone & Fax: 44-161-275-3187