11.2204, Disc: Does "Language" Mean "Human Language"?

[The LINGUIST Network]

LINGUIST List:  Vol-11-2204. Thu Oct 12 2000. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 11.2204, Disc: Does "Language" Mean "Human Language"?

Moderators: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar, Wayne State U.<aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry, Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>
            Andrew Carnie, U. of Arizona <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Reviews: Andrew Carnie: U. of Arizona <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Associate Editors:  Ljuba Veselinova, Stockholm U. <ljuba at linguistlist.org>
		    Scott Fults, E. Michigan U. <scott at linguistlist.org>
		    Jody Huellmantel, Wayne State U. <jody at linguistlist.org>
		    Karen Milligan, Wayne State U. <karen at linguistlist.org>

Assistant Editors:  Lydia Grebenyova, E. Michigan U. <lydia at linguistlist.org>
		    Naomi Ogasawara, E. Michigan U. <naomi at linguistlist.org>
		    James Yuells, Wayne State U. <james at linguistlist.org>

Software development: John Remmers, E. Michigan U. <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
                      Sudheendra Adiga, Wayne State U. <sudhi at linguistlist.org>
                      Qian Liao, E. Michigan U. <qian at linguistlist.org>

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded jointly by Eastern Michigan University,
Wayne State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.


Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karen at linguistlist.org>

=================================Directory=================================

1)
Date:  Thu, 12 Oct 2000 00:22:38 EDT
From:  Zylogy at aol.com
Subject:  Re: 11.2202, Disc: Does "Language" Mean "Human Language"?

2)
Date:  Thu, 12 Oct 2000 11:37:39 +0200
From:  "jose luis guijarro" <guijarro at wanadoo.es>
Subject:  RE:      11.2187, Disc: Does "Language" Mean "Human Language"?

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:  Thu, 12 Oct 2000 00:22:38 EDT
From:  Zylogy at aol.com
Subject:  Re: 11.2202, Disc: Does "Language" Mean "Human Language"?

Thanks Dan. By the way, on the issue of losers and consciousness- neoteny, by
rolling back evolutionarily selected specializations and making the character
of the organismal physiology and/or behavioral patterns more general,
actually bypasses much of the penny-ante nonsense that pushes organisms into
increasingly narrow corners- its a way of exiting the rat-race, if only for a
while. How many of you reading this have had to contend with the
mind-breaking effects of office politics- people fighting over the minutest
turf? And for what? This is what happens when the big issues are fixed, and
finer details are all that's left to argue over. Hi nu versus lo nu.
Fractal competition.

Much of the neoteny I'm familiar with seems to push bigger brains in place of
brawn- consider the rise of motile chordates from sessile, filter-feeding
ancestors (someone once wrote that the reason carnivores tend to be more
intelligent than herbivores could be found in considering how much mind it
takes to sneak up on a leaf). Bigger brains associate with more learning. And
learning is generally more important in the younger life stages of animals.
We are essentially giant infants from this viewpoint, though age still
manages for most of us to eventually rigidify behavior.

And for younger people the world is usually filled with awe and mystery-
infants have a great deal of REM activity as they integrate new stuff (while
many of us older folks would love to have a nice nocturnal vacation). Adults
progressively go autopilot, just never to the extent many animals reach
(especially the lower down you go).

Now consider birth- we are brought into the world in a much less capable
state than lower animals (almost as if we were simian marsupials, with caring
families and Hillarian villages instead of a pouch to make up the difference
in development). Everything has been pushed back (including our faces ;-). If
this keeps up we might find ourselves caring for fertilized zygotes outside
the womb (oops, I forgot- we're almost there now!). Maybe its time to
reconsider tadpoles.

Jess Tauber
zylogy at aol.com


-------------------------------- Message 2 -------------------------------

Date:  Thu, 12 Oct 2000 11:37:39 +0200
From:  "jose luis guijarro" <guijarro at wanadoo.es>
Subject:  RE:      11.2187, Disc: Does "Language" Mean "Human Language"?

Hola, buenas!

I am a bit astonished at the interest (and passion!) this particular
discussion is arising among fellow linguists. It shows that the issues are
indeed vital for many, which is something to be happy about --at least, if
you enjoy debating as I do.

As I have already answered the original message by my e-mail friend, Dan
Moonhak, I will refrain from participating in the debate until someone has
questions about my ideas.

However, I perceive a certain assumption in many of the participants which
makes me wonder. Maybe I am wrong, but it seems that while the
"mind-as-a-slate" holistic crew has a speculative, but well organised story
about the possible *evolution* of the human language (in many cases, a very
interesting theory too), my crew, namely the mentalist innate-modular one,
thinks that, in our frame of thought, no such speculation exists, let alone
an interesting and plausible one.

Well, in order to help people to overcome this "complex", if indeed it
exists outside my mind, they could go to Dan Sperber's page,
http://www.dan.sperber.com  where, among very intersting papers, they can
find one by Gloria Origgi and himself called "Evolution, communication and
the proper function of language" which is just that sort of speculative
theory in our own mentalistic frame.

De nada, y hasta la proxima!

Jose Luis Guijarro Morales
Facultad de Filosofia y Letras
Avda. Gomez Ulla, 1
11003 Cadiz (España)
Tel. +34 956 015526
Fax. +34 956 015501
joseluis.guijarro at uca.es

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-11-2204