6.19 Kant and Innateness, One grammar/two languages

[The Linguist List]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List:  Vol-6-19. Thu 12 Jan 1995. ISSN: 1068-4875. Lines: 73
 
Subject: 6.19 Kant and Innateness, One grammar/two languages
 
Moderators: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar: Texas A&M U. <aristar at tam2000.tamu.edu>
            Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at emunix.emich.edu>
 
Asst. Editors: Ron Reck <rreck at emunix.emich.edu>
               Ann Dizdar <dizdar at tam2000.tamu.edu>
               Ljuba Veselinova <lveselin at emunix.emich.edu>
               Liz Bodenmiller <eboden at emunix.emich.edu>
 
-------------------------Directory-------------------------------------
 
1)
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 08:21:20 -0500 (EST)
From: 00dgchurma at bsuvc.bsu.edu
Subject: Kant and Innateness
 
2)
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 11:14:51 +0800 (SST)
From: Anthea F Gupta (ellgupta at leonis.nus.sg)
Subject: One grammar two languages
 
-------------------------Messages--------------------------------------
1)
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 08:21:20 -0500 (EST)
From: 00dgchurma at bsuvc.bsu.edu
Subject: Kant and Innateness
 
Re Alan Huffmann's posting on "Kant and Innateness":  If Kant did say
"something to the effect that `Anyone who posits innateness as a scientific
explanation is guilty of laziness of the mind'", then it appears to me that
"he was certainly" NOT "on the button", at least if I understand
"laziness of the mind" correctly.  If X happens because Y is innate,
then this is a perfectly valid explanation for X's occurrence; if X
happens for some other reason, then it's not valid.  The hard work will
be determining whether Y is IN FACT innate, and anyone who assumes it is
OR IT ISN'T is guilty of arational behavior (simply failing to use reason at
all), i.e. (?) "laziness of the mind".
 
Don Churma
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 11:14:51 +0800 (SST)
From: Anthea F Gupta (ellgupta at leonis.nus.sg)
Subject: One grammar two languages
 
) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 94 03:58:33 +0100
) From: lxalvarz at udc.es (Celso Alvarez Caccamo)
) Subject: Re: Two languages / One grammar?
)
) Regarding John Cowan's (lojbab at access.digex.net) message
) (LINGUIST 5-1460. Sat 17 Dec 1994), about John Gumperz's
) work on language convergence:
)
) a) Two languages can't have the same grammar.  If they do,
) they are the same language.  The two lexicons would be
) considered sets of cooccurrent lexical variants.
 
Wouldn't it be true to say that all efforts to define what constitutes "a
language" are doomed to failure?  Because of the well-known constellation
of linguistic and social factors.  Two varieties of what people call "the
same language" may have different grammars.  So it's quite imaginable
that two varieties that people call "different languages" have the same
grammar.
 
Anthea Fraser GUPTA
National University of Singapore
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-6-19.