6.84 Linguistics, species, and poetry

[The Linguist List]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List:  Vol-6-84. Fri 20 Jan 1995. ISSN: 1068-4875. Lines: 88
 
Subject: 6.84 Linguistics, species, and poetry
 
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: Wed, 18 Jan 95 04:19:38 +0100
From: lxalvarz at udc.es (Celso Alvarez Caccamo)
Subject: Linguistics, species, and poetry
 
2)
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 17:39:06 -0800
From: edwards at cogsci.Berkeley.EDU (Jane A. Edwards)
Subject: Re:  species-specific (REVISED!)
 
-------------------------Messages--------------------------------------
1)
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 95 04:19:38 +0100
From: lxalvarz at udc.es (Celso Alvarez Caccamo)
Subject: Linguistics, species, and poetry
 
Moonhawk's extremely long message about linguists' species-ism
is very nice, soothingly poetic for a list like ours.
I wonder how a slug would express all that.
Nevertheless, it's amazing how the few, little tiny features
which set human language apart from other languages
can produce such rich meanings as Moonhawk's.
We should be humble: this minute fragment of Total Language
is a good place to start.
 
Celso Alvarez-Caccamo
lxalvarz at udc.es
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 17:39:06 -0800
From: edwards at cogsci.Berkeley.EDU (Jane A. Edwards)
Subject: Re:  species-specific (REVISED!)
 
 
S. Schaufele says,
) i certainly don't remember anything in the introductory survey
) courses I've taken myself ... so much as hinting that it is an
) a priori assumption of the field of linguistics that language
) is the exclusive prerogative of Homo sapiens.
 
Hmm.  How about the following (my emphasis added):
 
Dwight Bolinger (_Aspects of Language_, 2nd ed., p. 4, 1975):
   "LANGUAGE IS SPECIES-SPECIFIC.  It is a uniquely human trait, shared by
   cultures so diverse and by individuals physically and mentally so
   unlike one another--from Watusi tribesmen to nanocephalic dwarfs--that
   the notion of its being purely a socially transmitted skill is not to
   be credited."
 
Fromkin & Rodman (An Introduction to language_, 2nd ed., p. 16, 1978):
   "LANGUAGE IS A UNIQUE HUMAN CHARACTERISTIC.  Many of the early theories
   on the origin of language resulted from man's interest in his own
   origins and his own nature.  Since man and language are so closely
   related, it was believed that if one knew how, when, and where language
   arose, perhaps one would know how, when, and where man arose." 2nd ed.,
 
Eric Lenneberg (_Biological Foundations of Language_, p. 2, 1969):
   "A biological inquiry into language asks, 'WHY CAN ONLY MAN LEARN TO
   SPEAK A NATURAL LANGUAGE?' This question is fundamentally different
   from asking, 'In what respect is learning to speak similar to
   conditioning or operant learning as studied by animal psychologists.'
   The former question requires an investigation into the specific nature
   of the species Homo sapiens; the latter requires a programmatic
   disregard of species differences.  The former will turn to anatomy,
   physiology, and developmental studies for an answer (all of which are
   biological disciplines), whereas the latter will endeavor to discover
   analogies between stimuli, responses, rewards, and the temporal and
   spatial relationships between them."
 
 -Jane Edwards (edwards at cogsci.berkeley.edu)
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-6-84.