Deixis, Buhler and the Problem of Ambiguity (2)

[Tom Givon]

All higher cognitive capacities (cortex, mid-brain), in us as well as in 
other animals, require an interaction between innate capacities and 
learning experience ("triggers"). This was, by the way, Kant's 
conclusion about (what he considered, and I guess I do too) the futile 
eternal argument between rationalists & empiricists. So he was 'only' a 
philosopher, but he got it right anyway. In the case of your question, I 
hope nobody will ever do the crucial experiment with children. Sarah 
Hrdy describes some horrible experiments of this type done on children 
in the 1930's (raising them in the first few months without affective 
human touch). Thank God we have the Human Subject Committees nowadays. 
But similar experiments were done on newborn kittens. If raised for the 
first 90 days in the dark, their visual system will never develop. 
Likewise with barn owls, where visual deprivation in the first 3 months 
will prevent them for developing their AUDITORY spatial orientation 
(vision trains audition). Nobody would claim that mammal & avian vision 
is not a highly innate capacity. But it still need the triggering of 
experience. Only old-brain (vagus, pons, medula) functions are fully 
automated, and on line, at birth. Slow neurological maturation is the 
hallmark of learning species. Best,  TG

==========



Salinas17 at aol.com wrote:
> Tom wrote:
> --The CHILDES transcript of communication in the first year of life shows 
> that the prerequisite to reference is the care-giver's intense exercise in 
> establishing JOINT ATTENTION. The reason why this will become first deictic 
> reference is obvious--in early childhood, all communication is about 
> here-and-now, you-and-I, this-and-that accessible to both of us in the shared speech 
> situation.   There is nothing confusing to the infant in these learning 
> sessions.--
>
> Tom - Very appreciative of your wisdom on all this.   And I would not 
> contest with you on any of these points, except one -- because it is important to 
> my premise at this point -- though of course I always stand to be 
> corrected.
>
> How could it be that: "There is nothing confusing to the infant in these 
> learning sessions"?
>
> If that is the case, is it the only instance where experiencing a new 
> environment isn't confusing to a human (or an animal)?   Doesn't some confusion 
> come before every learning situation?
>
> Perhaps it's too early to speak of ambiguity (my point) when we are only 
> talking about joint attention rather than using language, but certainly if 
> it's learned it should be a matter of hit or miss from early on.   Is mom 
> pointing to the toy bear or the ribbon on the bear or the chair the bear is on -- 
> or is she pointing out that the bear is sitting on a chair -- or am I being 
> asked if I want the bear? Whether or not that confusion is disturbing or 
> not, it is fairly easy for mom to be unclear at this early stage in our 
> communications. 
>
> (After all, pointing or gesturing or saying "look at this" doesn't always 
> solve the problem of what someone is asking me to attend to, much less a 
> child.   Is it the lamp?   Is there something wrong with the lamp?   Is it the 
> lampshade?   Is it the bulb?   Oh, it's the fact that the light was left on, 
> wasting electricity.   Never would have guessed.)
>
> In any case, if I'd guess what might motivate a child to seek joint 
> attention, one thing would be that it to some degree alleviates confusion.   
> Attention is after all as much a matter of exclusion as anything else.   We need 
> to see the forest and not the trees, or vice versa.   Joint attention gives a 
> child something specific to attend to, rather than attending to everything 
> that's shiny or colored or in motion -- and even in a poor environment, that 
> can be many many things.
>
> A bigger question.   Let's imagine a child who is never invited at all to 
> join in joint attention with a care giver.   Would such a child be incapable 
> of learning language?
>
> We have a simple technical, mechanical reason to avoid gross ambiguity in 
> the language we speak with one another.   Otherwise we can't share the same 
> words or even the same syntax.   I suspect that the inability to share 
> attention is an even deeper mechanical problem and one that would undermine 
> language use.   And to that extent I don't think I am disagreeing with you.
>
> Regards and thanks,
> steve long
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> **************
> A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See Yours in Just 2 Easy 
> Steps! 
> (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221322941x1201367178/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=115&
> bcd=Mayfooter51809NO115)
>
>