So the reason language evolved, was to be used as language? I don't know how to read this except as a tautology, so I'm genuinely perplexed by what you're saying.

Or are you just, in a roundabout way, saying that language evolved for the purpose of communication? But this is just to repeat a take on the question the thread started with, without offering any interesting support for the idea. There isn't much content to the rest of the post.

Try this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_theories_of_grammar

Put your dummy back in maybe?

...by decoupling language from communication and making it a wholly cognitive faculty... — StreetlightX

It might be interesting to know how you think language and communication are "coupled" in a way which is coherent relative to Evolutionary Theory.

It seems intuitively obvious that language acquisition on a personal level requires the innate maturation of brain structures and mental functions used in language production and comprehension, and that the cause of this maturation is human nature (genetic predispositions) and human culture (specifically, social learning).

To conflate, rather than relate, "language" and "communication" would contradict how these words are used in Semiotics and Information Theory.

I have no problem "decoupling" these terms. For example: your use of language in this thread communicates misrepresentations of others' views, anger, hostility, and disdain.

One can't help wonder (as previously noted by another) whether your stance boils down to this attitude:

So yes, Chomsky and his adherents are so stupid as to believe humans' capacity for language is a miracle of God, or due to some other magic. — StreetlightX

It might be interesting to know — Galuchat

Oh good, then you can follow up on some of the reading I suggested and get back to me.

Surely you are capable of a concise summary?

Capable yes; Willing, for someone who's parachuted in, no.

Seems I "parachuted in" on Page 1.
Any other excuses?

Sure. I don't think it's worth my time. You show a bit of investment and I might consider it.

I would highly recommend this both for an insight into Chomsky’s thinking and regard for linguistics and philosophy, AND because Gondry’s animations are wonderful.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cv66xFD7s7g

The OP is primarily concerned with:

...the idea that not only did language not evolve gradually as a form of communication, but that language isn't communication at all. — Xtrix

Chomsky is mentioned incidentally as an influence on this idea.
So, my posts in this thread have been concerned with language and communication, not with Chomsky, or even with Chomsky's views on language and communication.

So the reason language evolved, was to be used as language? I don't know how to read this except as a tautology, so I'm genuinely perplexed by what you're saying.

Or are you just, in a roundabout way, saying that language evolved for the purpose of communication? But this is just to repeat a take on the question the thread started with, without offering any interesting support for the idea. There isn't much content to the rest of the post — Snakes Alive

If langauge evolved, (which I don't believe it did) then it evolved as an aid to survival. If you could shout there is danger, that's an advantage. If you could shout there is danger in the shape of a tiger or in the shape of a landslide, that's even better. If you can shout to run to safety toward the mountain or toward the tree or toward the river (tigers don't like to get wet) then that's even better than that.

Little by little those things developed, that aided survival.

Eventually tribes would hold meetings on matters that affected the tribe; this would aid even better survival.

-----------

I think language evolution is a crappolo idea, anyway, much like evolution. I believe that the ancient man had access (or since stone age, with stone axes, he had axxess) to the Oxford Dictionary of Standard English Definitions, Synonyms and Antonyms. Therefore they could strive for world hegemony, since they had a lingua franca the English langauge; and the English spleaking world still hasn't given up that idea.

I think language evolution is a crappolo idea, anyway, much like evolution. I believe that the ancient man had access (or since stone age, with stone axes, he had axxess) to the Oxford Dictionary of Standard English Definitions, Synonyms and Antonyms. Therefore they could strive for world hegemony, since they had a lingua franca the English langauge; and the English spleaking world still hasn't given up that idea. — god must be atheist

That's good.
Did you study under Philomena Cunk?

It’s part and parcel of the OP. I’m reasonably well versed in this area - more so in terms of the neurogenesis and the general neurological ‘mechanisms’ related to language, perception and communication.

It’s a delightful short film/interview that focuses on language (including the question of acquisition). Take it or leave it :)

Cheers.

Are you serious? :confused:

A quick word on this (I'm out right now and don't have access to my usual stuff): this cannot possibly be the case. — StreetlightX

Not very charitable of you, but I've no intention to bicker.

Read: Language evolved for reasons other than language. About as clear-cut as you can get.

[...]

Read: FLN was not an adaptation. — StreetlightX

The suggestion that FLN (narrow faculty of language) – namely, universal grammar (UG) – was an exaptation (traditionally termed “pre-adaptation” - strictly speaking, not an adaptation) is not contradictory to mainstream knowledge concerning biological evolution.

It may or may not so be, but the idea that UG’s current functionality did not initially evolve for the purpose it currently has is not, of itself, absurd.

As far as I'm concerned, this post isn't about Chomsky but about what is and is not acceptable in relation to mainstream biological evolution.

"[W]e suggest that by considering the possibility that FLN evolved for reasons other than language"

This seems to be where you're confused. As I've repeated several times now, the FLN is the recursive operation, call it "Merge." This is not "language," but it's proposed to be a unique human property of language, as the essay states. Any recursive procedure -- any algorithm that's going to create a system of digital infinity -- is going to have embedded in it somewhere an operation that says take two units that have already been formed and make up a bigger unit. Somewhere in any system you're going to find that -- whether it's an axiom system or Fregian ancestral or whatever mode you have for generating an infinite number of objects. This is what's being claimed to have been provided by a mutation ("rewiring of the brain") to an ancestor. If you want to discuss evidence for this, fine. But let's keep to the real world, not fabrications.

So, to use your quote in its entirety:

"Thus, a basic and logically ineliminable role for comparative research on language evolution is this simple and essentially negative one: A trait present in nonhuman animals did not evolve specifically for human language, although it may be part of the language faculty and play an intimate role in language processing."

Which is what they're arguing. How one goes from "Merge (FLN) evolved for reasons other than language" to "Language evolved for reasons other than language" is perplexing, unless of course there's emotional reasons for misunderstanding and deliberately fabricating as to make it seem absurd. You've already demonstrated your emotional attachment to functional analysis.

Read: FLN was not an adaptation. The 'argument from design' referred to above refers to nothing other than natural selection, which is clarified earlier in the paper: "Because natural selection is the only
known biological mechanism capable of generating such functional complexes [the argument from design], proponents of this view conclude... [etc]". — StreetlightX

The entire quotation:

"Hypothesis 2: FLB is a derived, uniquely human adaptation for language. According to this hypothesis, FLB is a highly complex adaptation for language, on a par with the vertebrate eye, and many of its core compo- nents can be viewed as individual traits that have been subjected to selection and perfect- ed in recent human evolutionary history. This appears to represent the null hypothesis for many scholars who take the complexity of language seriously (27, 28). The argument starts with the assumption that FLB, as a whole, is highly complex, serves the function of communication with admirable effective- ness, and has an ineliminable genetic compo- nent. Because natural selection is the only known biological mechanism capable of gen- erating such functional complexes [the argu- ment from design (29)], proponents of this view conclude that natural selection has played a powerful role in shaping many as- pects of FLB, including FLN, and, further, that many of these are without parallel in nonhuman animals. Although homologous mechanisms may exist in other animals, the human versions have been modified by nat- ural selection to the extent that they can be reasonably seen as constituting novel traits, perhaps exapted from other contexts [e.g., social intelligence, tool-making (7, 30 –32)]."

Also helpful for context:

"At least three theoretical issues crosscut the debate on language evolution. One of the oldest problems among theorists is the “shared versus unique” distinction. Most current commentators agree that, although bees dance, birds sing, and chimpanzees grunt, these systems of communication differ qualitatively from human language. In particular, animal communication systems lack the rich expressive and open-ended power of human language (based on humans’ capacity for re- cursion). The evolutionary puzzle, therefore, lies in working out how we got from there to here, given this apparent discontinuity. A second issue revolves around whether the evolution of language was gradual versus saltational; this differs from the first issue because a qualitative discontinuity between extant species could have evolved gradually, involving no discontinuities during human evolution. Finally, the “continuity versus exaptation” issue revolves around the problem of whether human language evolved by gradual extension of preexisting communication systems, or whether important aspects of language have been exapted away from their previous adaptive function (e.g., spatial or numerical reasoning, Machiavellian social scheming, tool-making)." (emphasis mine)

You're (1) hung up on language being defined narrowly as the Merge function and (2) on this having evolved through mutation quickly in one individual. The rest you fabricate. But the evidence points in this direction, I'm afraid.

Of course, for those not labouring under the delusions of Chomskian Grammar, the sheer diversity of various syntactic constraints were not so much useless hay to sort though in order to look for the needle of universals, but the very stuff of linguistic theory itself. — StreetlightX

Yes, studying different cultures, base number systems, music, etc., is all very interesting and important as well. Studying various languages of the world, thousands of them in fact, already assumes a universality: you're studying human language. What's interesting is asking what properties make up that thing you're studying.

"The very stuff of linguistic theory itself" is a complete delusion. Similarly absurd: "The very stuff of physics is studying what's going on outside your window."

forgot to mention:

Free advice. — Xtrix

well taken by me. Thanks

The exaptation thesis has to ignore all of this, because it is utterly committed to the idea that language evolved for means other than language. It has to, on the basis of nothing other than a prior, theoretical and dogmatic commitment, entirely stuff all of the above under the bed and argue it away because it cannot, on pain of incoherence, admit any of it into it's theoretical remit. It's alternative? Some middling unsubstantiated, unargued for bullshit about how it probably developed from some other reason (unknown) than hopped the genetic barrier over to humans for, again, no reason given. Language is rich, full of rich features, many of which can, and have been tracked closely with the ways in which it has developed over time, among cultures, in addition to anthropogenesis. To condense this all into some unspecified 'genetic modification' is nothing less than waving a magic wand stamped 'science' and thinking this should be taken seriously by anyone with half a brain. — StreetlightX

Eh, more nonsense. You repeatedly quote the Evans article. So here's a response, for those interested: https://www.languagesoftheworld.info/generative-linguistics/does-universal-grammar-theory-imply-that-language-are-all-the-same-response-to-vyvyan-evans-part-2.html

Of course there is a wide diversity of language on Earth. Of course data (the culture in which one is raised, the sounds and words one hears, etc) is involved. Of course languages (English, Italian, Swahili) constantly change. To study all of this is indeed important.

None of this has anything to do whatsoever with UG, which is the name for the theory of the genetic component of language, nothing less. If you're denying any genetic component, then best of luck to you.

Either language is unique to humans, or it isn't. If it is, we want to study what the properties are that makes it unique.

Chomsky on UG:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbKO-9n5qmc

"The only question is, what is it?"

And that can be discussed rationally.

If you take a baby from any culture on Earth, and raised them in (say) the United States, they'd grow up learning English. This simple fact -- and the fact that no other animal can acquire language -- is what's being studied in generative grammar. The vast diversity of languages is interesting, but trivial. We're interested in the genetic components that allow for such rich diversity.

This is all hard to see for some people, although it should be completely uncontroversial.

The functionalist doesn't deny this, though – the issue is what the shape of this capacity is, and what its domain-generality is.

My experience in studying different languages has always been that the initial shock of diversity gives way to a feeling of familiarity as you begin to recognize the same several hundred elements all shuffled about in different ways, and that is what is so intriguing to the generativist. That may be due to the biased sample of what I've happened to learn and study, but the commonalities even across typologically unrelated languages are almost disturbing from a purely functionalist perspective – they aren't just similarities in function, but similarities in weird formal features, that do not have prima facie functional explanations.

I had a more, er, robust response, but apparently telling you to educate yourself was not considered kosher.

In any case, if your 'feelings' are what you have to offer then I suppose we're done with any conversation worth anything at all.

That would be a great answer if Chomsky was not famous for entirely disregading linguisitc development in children — StreetlightX

Is this a joke? What exactly did he "disregard"? Carol Chomsky studied language acquisition in children for years, actually. I suppose that was all disregarded as well.

We all understand your feelings about Chomsky: you feel he's set linguistics back. Fine. It would be fun to have a conversation about the evidence. So far all you've offered is straw men.

So I'll ask directly: Besides the Science article, what of Chomsky's have you read or seen? Have you bothered to check whether your understanding of his position is accurate? If not, there's no sense pretending to have a rational discussion.

It doesn't even make sense as a response to what I said. It's a link to the Wikipedia page for functional grammar.

My original post was reported by some sook and subsequently edited, so yeah, it's odd. Basically, I'm not here to explain basic debates in linguistics to you. If you'd like to find out more, read. I've cited authors and papers, which I have no doubt will be ignored, but that would not be my problem.

I didn't ask for an explanation of basic debates in linguistics, though. I asked you a specific question with respect to what you're claiming. And it's not a question that can be answered by telling someone to read up on functionalist grammar.

The suggestion that FLN (narrow faculty of language) – namely, universal grammar (UG) – was an exaptation (traditionally termed “pre-adaptation” - strictly speaking, not an adaptation) is not contradictory to mainstream knowledge concerning biological evolution. — javra

Great, because that's not what I claimed. Rather, the issue has to do with the specificities of language, and the total lack of any plausable account of how and why such exaptation could have occured. I explained this previously to Snakes, and you're more than welcome to read that response.

Further, like the rather useless appeals to PE, the mere fact that exaptation exists licences no claim to plausibility about any one specific trait at all. One may as well say that 'history exists, therefore this one very specific and contentious event could have happened'. It's vacuous and sophistic, and no one should take it seriously. Without specifics, there appeal to the mere existence of exaptation is as empty as it is stupid. And when the specifics amount to "it was probs for navigation or something", that's not science, that's beer room speculation over a bong.

. And it's not a question that can be answered by telling someone to read up on functionalist grammar. — Snakes Alive

Except it is, which you would know if you knew anything about the subject whatsoever.