Answer to Spectacular

[dkp at EMAIL.ARIZONA.EDU]

Dianne getting sucked in....
.......
.....
...
..
.
.
>In a message dated 12/5/02 3:18:42 PM, dkp at EMAIL.ARIZONA.EDU writes:
><<so reference, in and of itself, doesn't seem unique to language. And
>recombination, in and of itself, is not unique to language. But, the language
>ability displayed by a typical adult human being is greater than the some
>of such parts....call it an "emergent" phenomenon...something spectacular
that
>happens when you have the right confluence of capabilities.>>
>This is the core of the illusion.  That the bulk of the language capability
>of a typical human arises from that individual.  And there's something of
>"manifest destiny" about the notion.

I am astounded by the interpretation...why, if a phenomemnon seems to emerge
from complex interaction of factors is it individual?  Why is it manifest
destiny? Obviously environment is a BIG part of it....Am I in trouble now
for shooting my mouth off?

>As if we could drop our hypothetical experimental culture-free infant in
a >cave somewhere and have him come out as an adult having built his own
>television set, domesticated a variety of food-producing plants and, of
>course -- speak a language.

I, of course, agree that this is ridiculous....darned if I know how you got
here from what I said...perhaps my own language capabilities are severely
stunted in some way which prevents me from communicating well?

>I'd have to ask Dianne Patterson whether she finds a working television
set,
>going to the moon or advanced calculus any less spectacular than typical
>human language ability.

I didn't intend to get into the business of ranking things as more or less
spectacular....how did we get here?

> No animal I know ever carved anything close to
>Michaelangelo's David or even built a reasonably profitable shopping mall.

I have polled my animal friends and they all agree that they have not created
any great sculptures or shopping malls lately...(neither have I for that
matter, but I did make a pretty cool clay whistle recently).

>The point is that Diane sees the difference between human and animal
>communication as an individual matter, but it may be the part that impresses
>her does not originate in "individual humans."

Whoa....stunned again...what is all this individual stuff I apparently have
my foot stuck in? help! help!  Let me out.

>If we did find an individual who could go off and build, say, a television
>set from scratch all by himself, should we conclude that its an "emergent
>phenomena" -- an ability that was inside him all along and just happened
>to pop out under the "right confluences."
>
>Steve Long

Aha, I see, I failed to mention culture...Steve, I'm afraid I jumped into
the conversation without reading the whole long back and forth (just read
the letter I actually responded to)...you are, apparently concerned that
I didn't mention culture as a crucial force in developing our abilities.


I guess you've placed me squarely in the counter-culture camp ;)

...you are absolutely right to point out the importance of culture (IMHO)...I
could not have made that whistle without a lot of support....I could not
have learned language either. I think the end result of CULTURAL influences
and our built in stuff is pretty amazing.  I'm sure I can't imagine all the
complex ways in which culture supports language and vice versa.

I'm sure there are other things I've left out...and that I'll hear about
them.
Have a great holiday season...I need to go make some graphs.

Dianne