language origins

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

In a message dated 10/15/99 1:45:35 AM, larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk wrote:

<<Language, I'd say, is a lot *more* complex than calculus.  But I don't
think degree of complexity is the issue.  The point is that our language
faculty appears to be part of our biological inheritance in a way that the
ability to construct or use calculus is not.>>

I think there is a whole trend - at least since guys like Wittgenstein - to
consider calculus just a particular rule-directed form of language.  Most
assuredly, we would not have calculus if we did not have language, and the
same might be said of any kind of formal logic.

Even if one tries to make a distinction here between non-verbal and verbal
logic, the fact is that verbal logic just demonstrably carries a much greater
amount of information when it comes to communication between two people.  An
"eminent" theorist in this field sent me a note (semi-name dropping)
reminding me that the great majority of our use of language is in talking to
ourselves.  That seems very true, and it points to the fact language's
enormous benefit as a MANAGER of information.  Newton devising calcalus was
Newton talking to himself.  Language as information manager allowed him to
manage the details of calculus AND retain those details as he went along.

So, even if we didn't invent language, we well might have INVENTED ITS
COMPLEXITY.  How much of that complexity, by natural selection, found its way
into the evolving structure of the brain is another question.

<<I think we learn a first language because our ancestors, at some point,
evolved a very specific biological proclivity to learn and use language.>>

My ex definitely had such a "proclivity."

Just to offer an alternative point-of-view.  If we are talking here about
"language" as communication - a great many animals have such specific
biological traits.  If we are speaking of language as the ability to transfer
information via sound, that too is not unique to humans.  If we are taking
about what is unique to humans - something human "ancestors" evolved
specifically - then that refers to language in a different sense.  And
comlexity is the most obvious difference between human language and other
forms of communication.  Human language just carries an ENORMOUS lot more
hard-science-quantifiable information in it.  Ask Jonpat.

The complexity of structure in human sounds or written words seems logically
to reflect an original complexity in the environment.  It would make no sense
for a species to devote all those valuable resources to develop complex brain
structures (or alternatively to invent complex language systems) unless there
was some corresponding complexity to initiate it.  The simple life form is
often in evolution more sucessful than the complex one.  (And BTW neither big
brains nor the ability to speak necessarily increases your survival chances
in local and short term situations - and these are the ones that determine
survival value in a trait.)  So was that complexity in the generating
environment the same one that still operates today?  Was it human society
right from the start that created language?  Obviously if we humans were not
as social as we are, we would not have needed anywhere as much language as we
have.

<<All physically normal human infants in passably normal surroundings learn a
language.  Even in highly abnormal surroundings, they will do their best to
learn a language, and they will succeed if there's any significant
reinforcement at all.  They do this at an age when they can hardly do
anything else, and they go about it in a highly orderly and consistent way.>>

I don't think we know this.  In fact, I think everything points to children
being very haphazard about making sounds until they start getting regular
feedback.  And a child who doesn't make sounds is considered "abnormal"
precisely because we KNOW that this will hinder development of language.
Whether language is innate or not, lack of language in most human cultures is
not favored - for the obvious reasons that the main vehicle of human cultures
is language.  That is enough to make a silent child "abnormal."  (Reminds me
of the joke about little Johnny at the dinner table suddenly saying "the
potatoes are cold."  The parents and sisters and brothers drop their knives
and forks in shock.  The mother says: "Johnny, we thought you couldn't talk.
For 13 years you never said a thing.  And now it turns out you can talk and
all you can say is "the potatoes are cold!?"  So, Johnny says: "Well, up till
now, everything has been okay.")

The fact is that no individual has ever been observed developing a "natural"
language from scratch.  There is Bickerton's argument for example that in
Hawaii creoles developed out of pidgin in only a single generation,
demonstrating an innate structural propensity for language complexity.  But
it is easy to point out that the children who devised the creoles did have a
model of complexity to imitate all around them, even if they did not adopt
its specific elements.

The real test is the one we can't ethically conduct - how much language would
a human child show who had never been exposed to any of the cultural
contingencies that demonstrably bring forth language?  There is no such
experiment on record.  But it just MIGHT show that, without human culture,
the "language centers" of the brain can easily and naturally and sucessfully
go to work on other things.  (There is some evidence for this.)

So, perhaps it's legitimate to hypothesize that language isn't inherited, but
that the need to be part of a human culture is - and that there is no way to
become part of a human culture without learning some vehicle of language -
even if it is as limited as Helen Keller's, for example.

Regards,
Steve Long