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

Interestingly, adding or talking away dimensionality is another possible way to do what grammar does. Chemical structural formulas, for instance, have added dimensions that are impossible to reflect in linear writing, and function as a kind of grammar i.e.:

.

The added dimensionally provides more information by virtue of the relative positioning of the atomic elements, just as grammar tells you contextual information about a particular sentence. 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. One imagines Ulysses written without grammar, and only with 'grammatical formulas': it would be even more of a nightmare than it already is.

I think you're right to see in art efforts of communication that go beyond what we can do with conventional grammar - I think J+L get at this with their discussion of diagrams which would instruct us how to tie knots. The anthropologist Andre Lehroi-Gourhan specifically speaks of how linear writing differs from early modern art precisely in terms a loss of dimensionality:

"The invention of writing, through the device of linearity, completely subordinated graphic to phonetic expression .... An image possesses a dimensional freedom which writing must always lack. It can trigger the verbal process that culminates in the recital of a myth, but it is not attached to that process; its context disappears with the narrator. This explains the profuse spread of symbols in systems without linear writing .... The contents of the figures of Paleolithic art, the art of the African Dogons, and the bark paintings of Australian aborigines are, as it were, at the same remove from linear notation as myth is from historical narration. Indeed in primitive societies mythology and multidimensional graphism usually coincide. If I had the courage to use words in their strict sense, I would be tempted to counterbalance "mytho-logy"-a multidimensional construct based upon the verbal-with "mytho-graphy," its strict counterpart based upon the manual." (Leroi-Gourhan, Gesture and Speech).

(the 'meow' that means 'dependency!') — StreetlightX

Well your honour, sir, with all due respect to your moderatingness, and bearing in mind that some us maybe have more fluency in the social side than others, and that the language of relationship is subject to contest and change, by the 'powers that be' and 'me too', 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. I'm sure I don't need to mansplain this to you, as an example of 'internalizing context into language'.

Perhaps it is philosophical bias that leads us into an overemphasis on the formal, abstract meanings of communication. These can only be built on top of (oxymoronic) 'social communication'. Which is to say that dominance/ dependency talk is perfectly familiar and understandable to us, and that we understand the dance of cats quite well. The meow or the hiss is a mere augmentation of the dance like a flamenco 'Ole!' It would be a mistake to ask what is the definition or grammar of 'ole!', wouldn't it? But no one raises their hackles and purrs, that is surely madness or nonsense?

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

I may be heretical here, but it looks to me as though we could better regard talk as having its origin as an ornamentation or supplement, (perhaps having particular function at distance, or in the mist or jungle) to body language, intonation and gesture adding another dimension already to the word-worms that we deal in here.

I'm thinking the difference between a play-reading and performance, and wondering if a silent performance of Hamlet wouldn't be more nearly complete than a copy of the text?

, 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

Sure. Nothing I'm saying is incompatible with any of this so I'm not sure why the laboured histrionics. I even specified that human language works with reference and patterns of relationship. Perhaps it is a non-philosophical bias that leads to an underemphasis on comprehension. In any case, here is Bateson writing on just what you seem to say is missing:

"To use a syntax and category system appropriate for the discussion of things that can be handled, while really discussing the patterns and contingencies of relationship, is fantastic. But that, I submit, is what is happening in this room. I stand here and talk while you listen and watch. I try to convince you, try to get you to see things my way, try to earn your respect, try to indicate my respect for you, challenge you, and so on. What is really taking place is a discussion of the patterns of our relationship, all according to the rules of a scientific conference about whales. So it is to be human".

why the laboured histrionics. — StreetlightX

Just playing with subtext by way of poetic demonstration - trying to add a virtual dimensionality to the string - handwaving. Should have added a mystification smilie, but couldn't find one.

This is where we came in:

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'.

I don't object to this.

The notion of incommensurability was used by some philosophers of science to claim that some theories of science were so utterly different to others that something said in one had a different meaning to what was said in another. Thinking this through in terms of language games, what has happened is a change in the game.

So while I point out that we ought reject the notion of incommensurability, you are taking a step further and saying that the notion is incoherent. These two positions are not mutually exclusive.

You're still not talking about grammar :(

SO what?

Where is the interesting disagreement you promised?

It's there if you care to look for it.

'If Amanda Baggs could talk, we would not understand her". — StreetlightX

Odd, then, that it seems we do understand her.

https://ballastexistenz.wordpress.com/about-2/

The 'talk' I'm referring to is the kind of communication she demonstrates in the video, not, obviously, that of her excellent blog.

There's a grey rug on my chair.

But Banno, there is so much more to the rug...

It's cotton, a rough hand-weave. The warp is a slightly lighter grey. There's a thread pulled where the rug goes over the left arm of the chair. It is badly pilled.

But Banno, there is so much more to the rug...

It was given to my wife by a friend. She put it on the chair to catch crumbs and drops of cheap red. It gets washed once every few weeks.

But Banno, you cannot tell us everything about the rug...

Perhaps; but I can tell you anything. And what I can't tell you, I might be able to show you.

Sigh. Well threaded ground, again irrelavent. Enough of the catechisms, engage.

But so was I.

When I work with autistic children, I sometimes observe carefully, then choose some characteristic and imitate it. With one, it was roaring and raging like a great ape. For another, it was his rocking and hum. Sometimes that makes me part of their world; other times, it allows me to see something of their world.

Try Amanda's repetitive behaviour and singing yourself.

But Banno, you have not translated her statements into English...

Of course not. DId you want a translation, or an understanding?

But Banno, you have not translated her statements into speech.

If a lion could speak...

Let's not be slippery with terms.

speech — StreetlightX

Is sign language speech?

What about dance?

Come on, Street: If you have a point, make it.

If a lion could speak, we could not understand him.

Sign language has a grammar.

I'm not sure about dance. Perhaps particular dances, or even dance companies, develop or construct fleeting grammars in the process of dancing or choreographing. But I'm not sure dance ought to be measured by the standard of sense - what, exactly, is to be understood in dance?

But then, you've not said a word about grammar, or kinds, or lions, for that matter. You've more or less ignored the thread - and you ask after the point?

I feel as though this is digressing into a talk about what criteria can be used to show and understand intentionality.

Wittgenstein seems to have been a logical behaviorist to some degree (contestable), so I don't think (as mentioned) that we could never understand a lion.

However, the fact that chimpanzees or other apes have a hard time learning our language speaks about a conceptual gap based on traits and characteristics which humans have, such as a higher intelligence or some such stuff.

Sad. I don't think you have said anything here with which I would disagree; nor anything that shows a problem with rejecting incommensurability between languages, language games, paradigms or world views.

"Language is not a general purpose communication tool. Language is better at communicating some kinds of things better than others. This makes intuitive sense, even though it is often not acknowledged - it is much easier for me to show you in a diagram how to tie a knot, than to describe it step-by-step in language. "
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.

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

Sure, you're welcome to understand language in as broad a manner as you like. However, the introduction of grammar marks a qualitative change in what one can do with language: as I wrote earlier, grammar functions to internalize context into language. Where gesture and 'perceptual interpretation' rely on an environment to provide context for action, grammar imports that context into language itself. Because grammar indexes the kind of word any particular use of word is, grammar marks the shift from index and icon to symbol: it allows us to speak about what it not present-to-hand, with the most basic grammatical function being that of negation. Grammar frees language from it's tether to the 'world',

Daniel Dor, whose work with Jablonka I cited in the OP, rightly notes that this allows for the explosive role of the imagination in breaking with lived experience: "Language is the only system that allows communicators to communicate directly with their interlocutors’ imaginations, and thus break away from the here-and-now of co-experiencing: instead of presenting the experience to their interlocutors for perception, communicators translate their experiential intents into a structured code, which is then transmitted to their interlocutors and instructs them in the process of imagining the experience – instead of experiencing it.... This unique communicative strategy is the key to the enormous success of language and its influence on the human condition." source

It will simply not do to ignore the specificity of language as symbolization even if along a certain dimension it retains a continuity with gesture and perception. One must attend to the discontinuities as well, and the importance of that discontinuity thereof.

According to the linked article:
Challenging Chomsky and his Challengers: Brian Boyd Interviews Daniel Dor

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

So, the (doubly circular) argument goes: verbal modelling (a brain-dependent process of collective innovation, or imagination) creates language, which creates "language-ready" brains.

Please don't explain to me how this makes more sense than Chomsky's position (i.e., language is an innate faculty).

But, if language affects brain physiology, which language process will enable us to eradicate brain cancer?

Please don't explain to me how this makes more sense than Chomsky's position (i.e., language is an innate faculty). — Galuchat

Yeah, I wouldn't want to disabuse you of your now publicly embarrasing ignorance of genetic assimilation and how it works.

Genetic assimilation is unlikely to be the case here. It has only been witnesses, and then only speculatively, in cases where a clear tetrogen is evident in the environment, such as a chemical and can directly cause an epigenetic change.
It is highly speculative, as is all cases of epigenetics, which is poorly understood in the general public.
It would be a difficult ask to prove that using words could effect a positive change in the genome.
What is being argued is that there is a limited innate facility in mammals to structure utterances in some way. All mammals have ability in this respect. But the examples where linguistic ability is at its apogee are examples where the brain is most highly developed is closest to a tabula rasa and able to employ micro-darwinian selectivity to neural pathways in build in vivo linguistic abilities. So rather than coming with a complete set of grammatical rules, humans learn as they go.

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

I disagree. J+D provide a very plausible account of exactly how such a positive change would come about: "Let us assume, then, that some of the adaptive linguistic innovations of stage N managed to spread and establish themselves in the community. This establishment was very enduring, because it was both dependent upon, and constitutive of, the social structure, and because social traditions are by their very nature self-perpetuating. This cultural change enhanced the communicative capacity of individuals within the community, thus increasing the fitness of the best individual communicators, as well as the fitness of the entire group. Crucially, however, the establishment of the innovation also raised the demands for social learning imposed on individuals in the community: ... In short: the linguistic innovations which established themselves in the community changed the social niche, and the inhabitants of this new niche had to adapt to it.

...Very gradually, however, the increasing cognitive demands set by the evolving linguistic niche started to expose hidden genetic variation. In our terms, residual plasticity was gradually stretched, and individuals found the accumulating linguistic demands more and more demanding. This process must have taken a long time. Eventually, however, after a very long period of consistent, directional cultural selection, genetic assimilation occurred: some individuals dropped out of the race; other survived. The frequencies of those gene combinations which contributed to easier language acquisition and use increased in the population... Obviously, this allowed for the whole process to start all over again: as a result of assimilation, individuals were freed once again to make use of their cognitive plasticity, to invent and learn more linguistic innovations"

It is true that this account, like all accounts of language acquisition, is speculative and hard to verify. However the mechanism is real, the account is evolutionarily plausible, and it certainly belies the incredibly naive charge of circularity. I do agree that epigenetics is poorly understood by the public, but this is a fault of the public and it's education, and not the field.

establish themselves in the community. — StreetlightX

You care confusing genetic evolution with cultural/ social evolution. You have no account is these "linguistic innovations" could be encoded in the genome, and there is not need for that to be the case . Social evolution is extrasomatic.
So whilst it would always be the case that a species that relied on language would tend to favour those with an adequate linguistic ability to be able to procreate, there would be no direct pressure onspecific innovations.

The two cannot be considered in isolation when discussing the genetic assimilation of language.

The evolution is genetic terms would not necessarily extend more than the use of the phrase "fancy a fuck baby".

there would be no direct pressure on specific innovations. — charleton

And the authors acknowledge this: "The genetic assimilation of these capacities was most likely partial, rather than complete. It could not have led to a completely innate response, because the on-going process of cultural evolution made sure that the cultural environment to which individuals were adapting was constantly changing. As we have already indicated, this state-of-affairs must have had far-reaching consequences in terms of the genetic evolution of categorization, in our case, linguistic categorization: very specific innovations, such as the meanings of specific words or specific morphological markers, were not assimilated, because they were too variable and context-dependent, and because they changed too rapidly throughout cultural evolution.... Effectively, this process resulted in a cognition biased towards a specific set of semantic categories. These categories did not end up completely assimilated, because cultural change still put a high premium on epistemic flexibility."

The key is to strike the right balance between plasticity and robustness, which, of course, evolution excels at. I encourage you to read the original paper linked in the OP - it would save us both alot of unnecessary effort.

This sounds like a structuralist reading of language as distinct form of perception. Poststructuralists(Lyoptard, Derrida) would disagree that perception is an unmediated contact with the world. It is also languaged in the sense that it is already an interpretation and is thus grammared. Jablonka also seems to miss that in understanding the meaning of a word, we are also accessing regions of the brain that are involved directly in perceptual experience. So the idea that language doesnt allow the communication of visual or auditory information seems to be contradicted by research showing how the somatosensory, auditoty and visual cortexes are activated while processing words that have to do with visual , auditory, movement or touch concepts

Poststructuralists(Lyoptard, Derrida) would disagree that perception is an unmediated contact with the world — Joshs

I never said that perception is an unmediated contact with the world. Neither did I say that "language doesnt allow the communication of visual or auditory information". Nor are either of these claims entailed by anything I said. It is not necessary that a language - broadly defined - has a grammar, and neither is grammatical structuring necessary for interpretation.