"is the same as"

[Patrick C. Ryan]

Dear Stefan and IEists:

 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Stefan Georg" <Georg at home.ivm.de>
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2000 5:16 PM

>>Wrong.  Language is not a biological phenomenon, but a cognitive one.

>Cognition is a biological process.  Ergo, so is language.

[SG wrote]
Language is a social phenomenon, which humans have been able to develop and
are able to use and process for purposes intimately connected with social
interaction, because they are furnished with certain cognitive abilities;
which they are, because their physis meets certain biological
prerequisites. The biological substratum furnishes the ability to develop,
use and change the tool, it doesn't determine its shape.

 [PR]
I am sure that many listmembers, recently trained under the social theories
of more recent times, will be unable and unwilling to accept the following
comments at face value however, there may be others who have yet to decide
these issues; and it is for them that I write.

Many linguists continue to maintain positions regarding the relationship of
biological facts and language that are really quite antiquated; and were
originated in the days when brilliants like Ashley Montague solemnly assured
us that humans had only one instinct: fear of falling, a weakened version of
Marxist "scientific" theory.

Since then, Western science has determined that many human behavioral
characteristics are biologically based, i.e. inherited through genetic
transfer: e.g. schizophrenia, homosexuality, manic-depression, sociopathy;
and, though disputed by socially hyper-aware apologists, intelligence --- to
name just a few of significance.

It is fatuous in the extreme to believe that genes, which control such
complex behavioral assemblages, are *strangely* without any affect
whatsoever on language --- especially, since even true believers must admit
the biological basis of language ability.

Similarly, I find it incredible that otherwise highly analytical thinkers
can fail to acknowledge that genetics plays an important part in
phonological development and change.

Any objective non-linguist would, on the basis of common sense alone, agree
that if the ratio of tongue mass to oral cavity or lingual mobility were
genetically altered, it would affect phoneme production --- but, you will
see, many linguists will dispute so simple and straightforward a
proposition --- vehemently.

We all know that biology-based theories have been misued in the recent past
to buttress political objectives but a doctrinaire insistence on the total
lack of influence of genetic factors on language is truly throwing out the
baby with the bathwater. And it is high time that some linguists modernize
their relationship with biology and genetics.

Pat

PATRICK C. RYAN | PROTO-LANGUAGE at email.msn.com (501) 227-9947 * 9115 W. 34th
St. Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES: PROTO-LANGUAGE:
http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/ and PROTO-RELIGION:
http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/proto-religion/indexR.html "Veit ek,
at ek hekk, vindga meipi, nftr allar nmu, geiri undapr . . . a ~eim meipi er
mangi veit hvers hann af rstum renn." (Havamal 138)