Selected Newsgroup Message
From: "Sergio Navega" <snavega@attglobal.net>
Subject: Re: language
Date: 13 Dec 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <385530ca_1@news3.prserv.net>
References: <38550a44.0@ns2.wsg.net>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3
X-Complaints-To: abuse@prserv.net
X-Trace: 13 Dec 1999 17:45:46 GMT, 32.101.190.199
Organization: Intelliwise Research and Training
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
The overall gist of your observations is reasonable. But I'd like
to comment on a few items:
Ray D. Scanlon wrote in message <38550a44.0@ns2.wsg.net>...
>[snip]
>I speculate that each group would have independently evolved a complex
>language with a grammar. By grammar, I mean that certain combinations
>of sounds should be preferred and others frowned upon.
>
Hum, that's a weird notion of grammar. What you appear to be mentioning
are the phonological sounds that are very different from language to
language. This, obviously, is different than the way one structures
words (each one composed of several phonemes) into phrases. Grammar
relates to the way words are composed into these larger structures.
Grammatic structures are not directly linked to phonology.
>Studies of the brain, starting in 1955 by Hubel and Wiesel and
>followed by a host of others, have shown that for many neural
>capacities there is a window of opportunity. While the basic
>connections are hardwired by the DNA, there is a period during which
>adjustments must be made in response to the environment or they will
>never be done. Children born with strabismus must have the defect
>correct in infancy. If the operation is delayed, they will
>never develop binocular vision.
>
Well, lets say that these children will have difficulties to
develop binocular vision, not impossibility. This is same
story of late second-language learners: they will always keep
that "accent", but they will be able to communicate.
>This condition exists in language. The DNA wires the brain for grammar.
I know that this is the way most cognitive scientists from the
Chomskyan school think. But I doubt this position is tenable.
The first point is regarding the real existence of a 'universal
grammar': I doubt that such a thing exists. What exists is the
'same world' demands over humans, the fact that we have around
us 'objects' with 'properties' and that we refer to 'action' verbs
when talking about these objects. This is really universal, and the
the "grammar" one uses to talk is a direct function of these
properties. So there's nothing for DNA to code other than our
ability to handle objects, properties, action correlations, etc.
>If the child is exposed to a grammar between sometime after birth
>up to possibly the age of six, it will adopt it. What is striking
>is that there is far more than the capacity to acquire a grammar,
>there is a positive need, a drive, for a grammar.
This is a good point. I also think that language is something that
depends not only on 'brain capacities', but it also depends on
our intense *need* of learning it. Those who had children (or who
live with some) will attest that they learn language because they
must to satisfy their external needs. So humans don't learn
language, they are compelled to learn it.
>
>The vocabulary instinct (DNA) is much more evident. Everyone who
>has children is familiar with babbling. Investigators have found
>that all the sounds of all languages are present
>in the babbling although only a subset will be used later.
>
Well, sort of. I'm not happy to hear 'vocabulary instinct'. It
somewhat suggests the idea that DNA codes vowels, consonants,
fricatives, etc., instead of coding the functional abilities
to produce a range of sounds.
What appear to be more reasonable is that DNA codes functional
specifications of our phonological apparatus and that the baby
uses this apparatus to produce random babblings. But after exposure
to her parent's utterances, the baby starts to restrict its
repertoire, by prunning the unused sounds. This is a cooperative
task of phonological (motor) and auditory cortexes.
>Many believe that modern man mutated about 200,000 years ago in Africa. One
of the
>mutations was the language mutation, the alteration of the DNA that
produced the neural
>wiring that demands grammar. I speculate that language arose in the first
generation
>following the language mutation. All the languages in the world today
evolved from that
>first language. All the languages studied have been found to have full
vocabularies and
>full grammars. We have absolutely no reason to think that a language
25,000, 50,000, or
>100,000 years ago was any different. The language developed in the first
generation would
>have a full vocabulary and grammar.
>
>Language appeared fully formed in one generation; it did not evolve.
>
This is a rather unlikely hypothesis. What you appear to be suggesting
is that language appeared because of a 'single mutation' in our
genetic code. Is it reasonable to think that ONE (hugely) unlikely
alteration could provoke all the necessary conditions for such a
complex and sophisticated system like language?
What appears to be more reasonable is to "spread" the appearance
of necessary mechanisms in hundreds of thousands of years of evolution,
and probably not directly linked to language. It is more probable
that language is the result of a 'side effect', the same kind of
thing that happened with wings of birds (they were "designed" as
thermal insulation and later were used to support flight).
That idea would suggest that other animals should also have language.
But we know that only humans use language with such an exquisite
structure. The question is complex: language demands complex brains,
but it also demands a community, also demands a phonological
apparatus able to bootstrap its appearance, also demands abilities
to reason about third person, reasoning about temporal structure,
etc. It is a complex effect that cannot be assigned to a single
genetic mutation.
Regards,
Sergio Navega.
From: "Sergio Navega" <snavega@attglobal.net>
Subject: Re: language
Date: 14 Dec 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <38562584_2@news3.prserv.net>
References: <38550a44.0@ns2.wsg.net> <385530ca_1@news3.prserv.net>
<S2o54.2291$Sfm.185062400@news.telia.no>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3
X-Complaints-To: abuse@prserv.net
X-Trace: 14 Dec 1999 11:09:56 GMT, 32.101.186.132
Organization: Intelliwise Research and Training
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Patrik Bagge wrote in message ...
>Some comments...
>
>[Sergio]
>
>>Well, lets say that these children will have difficulties to
>>develop binocular vision, not impossibility. This is same
>>story of late second-language learners: they will always keep
>>that "accent", but they will be able to communicate.
>
>
>It seems that there is a variation in this second language
>learning capability, some are never able to 'drop' their
>accent and others do it gracefully. We seem to be 'cut'
>differently, due to, i assume, different DNA.
>
It is not easy to determine the cause of such variations. It may
be the result of purely genetic preconditions, although I doubt
it. More likely, it may be the result of early exposure, when
baby, to strange languages (like frequently listening to a foreign
neighbor). All we know today is that it is a complex process,
influenced by a myriad of factors.
Regards,
Sergio Navega.
From: "Sergio Navega" <snavega@attglobal.net>
Subject: Re: language
Date: 14 Dec 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <3856a535_1@news3.prserv.net>
References: <38550a44.0@ns2.wsg.net> <385530ca_1@news3.prserv.net>
<38568ac4.0@ns2.wsg.net>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3
X-Complaints-To: abuse@prserv.net
X-Trace: 14 Dec 1999 20:14:45 GMT, 32.101.186.75
Organization: Intelliwise Research and Training
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Ray D. Scanlon wrote in message <38568ac4.0@ns2.wsg.net>...
>
>Sergio Navega writes:
>>Ray Scanlon writes:
>> >
>> >Language appeared fully formed in one generation; it did not evolve.
>> >
>>
>> This is a rather unlikely hypothesis. What you appear to be suggesting
>> is that language appeared because of a 'single mutation' in our
>> genetic code. Is it reasonable to think that ONE (hugely) unlikely
>> alteration could provoke all the necessary conditions for such a
>> complex and sophisticated system like language?
>>
>> What appears to be more reasonable is to "spread" the appearance
>> of necessary mechanisms in hundreds of thousands of years of evolution,
>> and probably not directly linked to language.
>
>There are two structures that give us the physical basis for vocal
>language. The first is the airway and the flexible tongue. We share
>this with all mammals. The second is the position of the larynx
>that is restricted to modern man. This is almost certainly the
>result of a single mutation.
>
Apparently there's a third requisite, lung control. Some hypothesis
advance that uttered languages can only appear in bipedal mammals,
because of the erect position and its effect on lung control.
This could explain why chimpanzee and other apes didn't evolve it
naturally. But don't explain why Neantherthals didn't have language.
>Neither of these is necessary for language as is shown by the
>existence of sign languages. These are not pidgins; they are full
>languages with complete grammars.
>
That's right, and recent results of a community of deaf children
in Nicaragua adds to the evidences.
>A single mutation gave the brain the ability and proclivity to
>manipulate language. There is no need to postulate a period of
>hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. A mutation happens in
>one instant and only one mutation was needed. The brain is the
>result of a billion years of evolution of the nervous system with
>endless mutations involved. The language ability of the brain was
>the result of a single mutation. Before the mutation men
>were limited to cries and grunts, after the mutation they could
>speak as they do today.
>One generation sufficed to produce a full vocabulary and a full grammar.
>
This argument is not tenable. Language is something that demands a
community of speakers. Mutations (let alone the *correct* ones!)
are very rare. Wouldn't it be a great coincidence if the right
mutation happened to a community of primates and that this
community was *strongly* selected (over the non-speaking) to
allow language to appear in a single generation?
Besides, language appeared simultaneously in several groups of
H.sapiens, very far apart from one another. How can that happen?
Origins of language are complex because it is not a phenomenon
that we can ascribe to single events. One needs brain capacity in
order to understand and generate it. But one also needs an
interlocutor! We can't have language unless there's a community
of properly adapted organisms, ready to understand phonemes (or
sign languages) and ready to "copy" the 'grunts' and 'squeaks'.
This doesn't happen in a single generation and probably is not
the result of a single mutation, but a lot of them.
Regards,
Sergio Navega.
From: "Sergio Navega" <snavega@attglobal.net>
Subject: Re: language
Date: 15 Dec 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <3857b5e3_2@news3.prserv.net>
References: <38550a44.0@ns2.wsg.net> <385530ca_1@news3.prserv.net>
<38568ac4.0@ns2.wsg.net> <3856a535_1@news3.prserv.net>
<GVA54.243$V2.3346@sea-read.news.verio.net>
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3
X-Complaints-To: abuse@prserv.net
X-Trace: 15 Dec 1999 15:38:11 GMT, 32.101.186.226
Organization: Intelliwise Research and Training
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Gary Forbis wrote in message ...
>Sergio Navega <snavega@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:3856a535_1@news3.prserv.net...
>> Apparently there's a third requisite, lung control. Some hypothesis
>> advance that uttered languages can only appear in bipedal mammals,
>> because of the erect position and its effect on lung control.
>> This could explain why chimpanzee and other apes didn't evolve it
>> naturally. But don't explain why Neantherthals didn't have language.
>
>While Neanderthals may not have had language, I'm not sure how one can
>back such an assertion. Written language hasn't been around for all that
>long yet it is presumed humans were speaking long before anything was
>written down.
>
I agree that every hypothesis in this regard should be taken with a
grain of salt. Neanderthals may have had some sort of language
(perhaps driven mostly by hand signs, if vocal capacity was insufficient),
but they didn't had enough time to enter a 'cognitive explosion' such
as the one we're in. The lesson to be taken from all this is that
brain power alone is not enough for survivability. And one needs
to survive in order to advance the cultural milieu.
Regards,
Sergio Navega.
Back to Menu of Messages Sergio's Homepage
Any Comments? snavega@attglobal.net