Closer to home, see here a human language that is 2 dimensional, rather than the linear strings in which we philosophise. I wonder if this conforms to the limitations described in the op's article? — unenlightened
(the 'meow' that means 'dependency!') — StreetlightX
In principle, there is actually no difference between what a strucutral formula is doing and what a grammar does. If human language is grammatical rather than dimensional, it's probably only a matter of convenice. — StreetlightX
, it seems clear that even considerations such as the length of sentences, not to mention such formalities and informalities as the 'tu/vous' convention both establish and confirm social relations in subtle ways that relate to grammar. — unenlightened
why the laboured histrionics. — StreetlightX
Definitely - this is what Witty's account of learning emphasizes. But this is the problem with speaking of 'commensurability': the language of commensuribility bothers me because it's so binary: "X is or is not commensurate with Y". But the fluidity of language games and the dynamism of linguistic practice abjures such black and white vocabulary. I honestly think sometimes a ton of philosophers of language would hang their head in shame if they simply learnt another language other than English. To anyone who is bi or multi-lingual, I think the question 'are those languages commensurate?' would really come off as a dumb question, a question to which answers would be 'not even wrong'.
'If Amanda Baggs could talk, we would not understand her". — StreetlightX
speech — StreetlightX
This may appear so only as a result of arbitrarily limiting the definition of language to formal symbolization. If we broaden it to include perceptual interpretation of the world, affective gesture and vocalization, then language comes to be seen not as a tool of communication but as a precondition for any experience. — Joshs
Our language-ready brains and physiologies (which are still as variable as our ancestors’) were forced into existence by language, not the other way around. — Daniel Dor
The capacity that made language possible is the social capacity of collective innovation, which is exactly what the apes lack...They do not invent together. — Daniel Dor
Please don't explain to me how this makes more sense than Chomsky's position (i.e., language is an innate faculty). — Galuchat
Genetic assimilation is unlikely to be the case here.... It would be a difficult ask to prove that using words could effect a positive change in the genome. — charleton
establish themselves in the community. — StreetlightX
there would be no direct pressure on specific innovations. — charleton
Poststructuralists(Lyoptard, Derrida) would disagree that perception is an unmediated contact with the world — Joshs
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.