4 ms·

The main argument I took from Chomsky is that the human brain is predisposed to language. I don't think proving whether language may have (/ may have not) evol

by lwhi 16y ago

The main argument I took from Chomsky is that the human brain is predisposed to language. I don't think proving whether language may have (/ may have not) evolved from a single root is so interesting. The interesting part for me, is that the brain is an organ that has evolved in part due to its capability to process language, which in turn has been able to affect our capacity and capability to think. I believe humans do have an innate capacity for language - and this capacity has provided us with an evolutionary advantage. Whether or not all languages are similar or different isn't the point - the fact that the brain is able to efficiently process (and evolve) language can be seen as an example of evolutionary biology whether or not the precise mechanisms are understood.

travisp 16y ago
It's more than that there is just a predisposition for language. Chomsky argues that this predisposition is a result of a universal grammar, or set of grammar rules for organizing language that is a fundamental part of our brains: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar So, for this theory, it does matter what differences and similarities there are in grammar for different languages, and how those similarities or differences came about. What this study does is show that at least for one aspect of language, word order, what might seem to be universal fundamental rules of grammar are not, and are shaped by cultural, not genetic, evolution.
- lwhi 16y ago
  But I don't think a suggestion that there's such a thing as 'universal grammar' is the same as a suggestion that syntactic grammar is going to be shared between all languages. As I understand it, the unifying element of UG could be simplistic or complex - which might make the concept hard to discredit. I'm pretty certain that syntactic grammar would be the result of cultural and genetic evolution. If both factors are available to influence a language's evolution, I'd imagine that both would be likely to influence the way that language evolves to some degree. I think the most interesting part of this mystery is how the brain's capacity for language might be innate - and in this respect, looking at the resultant artefacts produced by this processing might be a bit like looking at the remnants scattered around the room after a party the night before. Perhaps the concept of a shared UG is more relevant to the process than the resulting syntactic structure?

by lwhi 16y ago

travisp 16y ago

It's more than that there is just a predisposition for language. Chomsky argues that this predisposition is a result of a universal grammar, or set of grammar rules for organizing language that is a fundamental part of our brains: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar So, for this theory, it does matter what differences and similarities there are in grammar for different languages, and how those similarities or differences came about. What this study does is show that at least for one aspect of language, word order, what might seem to be universal fundamental rules of grammar are not, and are shaped by cultural, not genetic, evolution.

lwhi 16y ago
But I don't think a suggestion that there's such a thing as 'universal grammar' is the same as a suggestion that syntactic grammar is going to be shared between all languages. As I understand it, the unifying element of UG could be simplistic or complex - which might make the concept hard to discredit. I'm pretty certain that syntactic grammar would be the result of cultural and genetic evolution. If both factors are available to influence a language's evolution, I'd imagine that both would be likely to influence the way that language evolves to some degree. I think the most interesting part of this mystery is how the brain's capacity for language might be innate - and in this respect, looking at the resultant artefacts produced by this processing might be a bit like looking at the remnants scattered around the room after a party the night before. Perhaps the concept of a shared UG is more relevant to the process than the resulting syntactic structure?