Yes. Meaning is indeed prior to language as it must be. — creativesoul

Interesting claim, particularly the part about "structures of language" being genetically wired into our nervous system before birth. Care to unpack that? I mean, what sort of thing can a structure of language be if it is something capable of being 'genetically wired'? And... what counts as being genetically wired? — creativesoul

Wouldn't the proper analogy here be "Is number prior to counting"? — Noble Dust

Whatever you come up with and wherever you go, you should take into account the fact that the capacity for and structures of language are genetically wired into our nervous system before birth. — T Clark

a radical dissimilarity between all animal communication systems and human language. The former are based entirely on “linear order,” whereas the latter is based on hierarchical syntax. In particular, human language involves the capacity to generate, by a recursive procedure, an unlimited number of hierarchically structured sentences. A trivial example of such a sentence is this: “How many cars did you tell your friends that they should tell their friends . . . that they should tell the mechanics to fix?” (The ellipses indicate that the number of levels in the hierarchy can be extended without limit.) Notice that the word “fix” goes with “cars,” rather than with “friends” or “mechanics,” even though “cars” is farther apart from “fix” in linear distance. The mind recognizes the connection, because “cars” and “fix” are at the same level in the sentence’s hierarchy. A more interesting example given in the book is the sentence “Birds that fly instinctively swim.” The adverb “instinctively” can modify either “fly” or “swim.” But there is no ambiguity in the sentence “Instinctively birds that fly swim.” Here “instinctively” must modify “swim,” despite its greater linear distance.

Animal communication can be quite intricate. For example, some species of “vocal-learning” songbirds, notably Bengalese finches and European starlings, compose songs that are long and complex. But in every case, animal communication has been found to be based on rules of linear order. Attempts to teach Bengalese finches songs with hierarchical syntax have failed. The same is true of attempts to teach sign language to apes. Though the famous chimp Nim Chimpsky was able to learn 125 signs of American Sign Language, careful study of the data has shown that his “language” was purely associative and never got beyond memorized two-word combinations with no hierarchical structure.

...

Is there an ontological discontinuity between humans and other animals? Berwick and Chomsky arrive, on purely empirical grounds, at the conclusion that there is. All animals communicate, but only humans are rational; and for Berwick and Chomsky, human language is primarily an instrument of rationality. They present powerful arguments that this astonishing instrument arose just once and quite suddenly in evolutionary history—indeed, most likely in just one member of Homo sapiens, or at most a few. At the biological level, this involved a sudden upgrade of our mental machinery, and Berwick and Chomsky’s theories of this are both more plausible than competing theories and more consistent with data from a variety of disciplines. But they recognize that more than machinery is involved. The basic contents and meanings, the deep-lying elements of human thought—“word-like but not words”—were somehow there, mysteriously, in the beginning.

Counting, and meaning, are the action; number, and language, the tool. — Banno

It is misguided to take statements as the whole of language. — Banno

Creative and I have had much the same discussion for years. Do I know you of old, Nobel Dust? — Banno

you appear to not want to debate this with me. — Noble Dust

What was your reply? I must have missed it. — Banno

I don't think words representing what we mean is equal to statements being the whole of language. If you're talking about "the whole of language", how does meaning being a function of language (what I interpret your argument to be) better deal with that whole? — Noble Dust

Meaning is what we do with language. — Banno

Counting, and meaning, are the action; number, and language, the tool. — Banno

Meaning is not separable from language because meaning is what language does — Banno

Meaning is not a function of language; meaning is something we do with language.

But better: forget about meaning altogether and just look at what we do with language. — Banno

You seem to be saying several different things, Banno. — Srap Tasmaner

Meaning is not separable from language because meaning is what language does — Banno

I think what I'm getting at is that meaning seems like a kind of Indian rope trick — Wayfarer