I'm not sure what "confirming" refers to hear. "Emoting" is also vague -- one can emote without language. Animals can emote as well in this sense. Furthermore, one can communicate emotions without language -- through a hairstyle, by slamming doors, by mien, by gait, etc. — Xtrix

That’s true, but it doesn’t mean language isn’t also doing that.

But I’ll go along with the use of language being thought and that what does get externalised is a strange, inefficient or inaccurate, form of communication.

So language is inadequate for communication?

Edit: or there is only so much we wish to communicate through language.

Or language serves very primitive needs.

Or language is deception.

But I’ll go along with the use of language being thought and that what does get externalised is a strange, inefficient or inaccurate, form of communication.

So language is inadequate for communication?

Edit: or there is only so much we wish to communicate through language. — Brett

My sentence was misleading. I forgot to put "most of what gets externalized." Obviously of the small part of what does get externalized, there's exchange of information. But most of the externalization seems to be phatic communication rather than exchange of information. That's what I meant.

So no, language is not "inadequate for communication."

So not inadequate but mostly phatic in function and to a lesser degree information. What does the information consist of?

Edit: language then is a social function, cohesive and bonding.

So not inadequate but mostly phatic in function and to a lesser degree information. What does the information consist of? — Brett

Of what gets externalized in communication, most is phatic. The rest can be exchange of information. What "information" gets exchanged? There's an infinite amount of information that can be exchanged - I don't understand the relevance of that question. You can pick literally any example you'd like. Giving someone directions is exchanging information. Teaching physics is exchanging information. Etc etc etc.

Edit: language then is a social function, cohesive and bonding. — Brett

No, language then is for thought.

There's an infinite amount of information that can be exchanged - I don't understand the relevance of that question. You can pick literally any example you'd like. Giving someone directions is exchanging information. Teaching physics is exchanging information. — Xtrix

Okay, I just wanted to confirm that.

No, language then is for thought. — Xtrix

Yes, but the thought expressed as phatic expression is essentially functional, in the sense of being socio-pragmatic, which is what I’m calling primitive because it’s purpose is ancient.

So there are two forms of language.

Yes, but the thought expressed as phatic expression is essentially functional, in the sense of being socio-pragmatic, which is what I’m calling primitive because it’s purpose is ancient. — Brett

I'm not even sure phatic communication is an expression of thought, but let's say it is. It's certainly true that phatic means socio-pragmatic, and that social interactions/communication goes way back in time, from primates to whales to elephants. So what? All those pieces are correct. What's incorrect is the statement "language then is a social function." That's taking one aspect of communication (namely, phatic communication) and using this to define language generally. That's incorrect. The characteristic use of language is not communication, whether phatic or informational: its characteristic use is for thought.

What's incorrect is the statement "language then is a social function." That's taking one aspect of communication (namely, phatic communication) and using this to define language generally. That's incorrect. The characteristic use of language is not communication, whether phatic or informational: its characteristic use is for thought. — Xtrix

Is this where posting gets tricky? I’m suggesting there are two modes of thought expressed through two modes of language. One, phatic, having a social function is what I’m calling primitive, and the other is for information: teaching, giving directions, etc.

Maybe, as you say, phatic expression is not an expression of thought, that it’s something similar but different.

So what? All those pieces are correct. — Xtrix

I’m just leaving my trail of breadcrumbs.

I’m suggesting there are two modes of thought expressed through two modes of language. — Brett

Sure, and the suggestion is wrong because "two modes of language" is meaningless. It's two modes of communication -- phatic and informational. Communication and language are not synonymous. Communication is one aspect of language -- how language is externalized in various ways. Language itself appears to be a system of thought, as indicated by it's characteristic use (viz., you're talking to yourself all the time but rarely communicate those thoughts).

Communication is one aspect of language -- — Xtrix

What would be an example of another aspect of language?

What would be an example of another aspect of language? — Brett

Thought. And not just a secondary aspect, like externalization. It seems to be the core "function" of language.

Thought uses language to formulate idea, theories, etc.

Thought uses language to formulate idea, theories, etc. — Brett

It certainly appears so.

Thanks. I feel like I've caught up now, right back to the beginning.

So this suggests language existed before the spoken word.

So this suggests language existed before the spoken word. — Brett

Yes indeed.

And language can't have evolved by being passed on vocally from one to another.

Or can't have begun from zero.

I think i'm referring to issues of recursion here.

And language can't have evolved by being passed on vocally from one to another.

Or can't have begun from zero. — Brett

I don't really understand this.

Maybe this will help: skip to 1:01:40.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv66xFD7s7g&t=1167s

I mean that language is innate.

Yes, language is innate.

This is a bit of a scatter gun approach. My intent here isn’t to ‘debate’ or ‘argue’. My intent is to explore the subject matter beyond the initial post made by you - I’m not really interested in talking about Merge in depth because I can, and have, read up on that elsewhere.

Well fine, but that's not saying much. Of course you agree language is something separate from, say, digestion. The visual system is separate from the circulatory system as an object of study. Are there overlaps and interactions? Yes, of course. I don't disagree with that. But we're trying to find out what language is and what the principles underlying it are. — Xtrix

This is just speculation as much as what I have mentioned regarding language acquisition in adulthood. Why dismiss instances of people who have difficulty in using language or who have been cut of from language (and human contact to some degree or other simply because the cases are in the low numbers). Anyway, there is no need to go back and forth over this ...

Something that is apparent from neurogenesis is the plasticity of the human brain. The acquisition of ‘communicative language’ (spoken/signed) shifts the activity fro the right hemisphere more into the left hemisphere - although some argue this is just a matter of motor function. Is the motor function necessary for language? It seems so on the surface but that may be too hasty to hold to.

Note: not interested in getting into semantics over the meaning of ‘function’ or ‘language’. It was apparent enough to me, before looking in to Chomsky, that ‘language’ is a loaded term and that linguistics - as a science - has many softer and harder edges in terms of psychology and computational analysis.

If we’re talking about evolution then I’m afraid you cannot ignore ‘anthropology’ and then make it out to be some can of non-science - it is a science, and like ‘linguistics’ it has softer and harder edges to it. The genetic factor has been pursued in term of ‘language genes’ but that whole endeavor has pretty much been dropped because the system is far too complex and there is very little evidence that singular genes act in isolation.

Let us take the example of ‘the man with no language’ and ask how we can identify some ‘innate’ capacity fro language. If, like you say, he always had the capacity for language there untapped then how come feral children cannot develop a language as fully as him? It seems obvious the telling factor is he lived in human society. This leads me to think that it is more a matter of associating abstract ideas with commonly lived features of the environment - as example if you show chimp faces to infants they develop the ability to distinguish monkey faces from each other, and it isn’t a huge leap to see that humans brought up without exposure to human features won’t find it easy to distinguish between different human faces (people to them will look fairly generic). This is a well known developmental feature of human’s (IOR - inhibition of return).

Let’s move onto other areas like the youngest language we know of developed by deaf children in Nicaragua. As I‘vepreviously mentioned the early stage of this language - its initial form - showed that fully grown adults were unable to hold both object colour and position in mind at once when asked where such and such an object was located (eg. near the blue box in the left corner). This is something a rat cannot do nor a 5 year old child - yet the adults were quite capable of solving other complex problems. The younger speakers had picked up more complex terms in language communication that dealt with this and many adults then learnt to apply this to their view of the world.

What is going on there? If the ability to perceive the objective world is shaped by word concepts in this way then does this mean it takes a huge cognitive leap to open up a more comprehensive amalgam of sensory data?

Let’s move onto other studies regarding ‘attention’. I’m sure you’ve heard of ‘blind-sightedness’ where subjects are consciously ‘blind’ yet they can navigate around obstacles. If we look at instances of stoke victims too who go through a recovery period they describe their lack of ability to ‘see’ one half of their body/face as more or less a lack of ‘attention’. In this respect we could suggest that language is more or less something like a mechanism of ‘attention’ - a mode of thought expression (not necessarily ‘external’ - meaning directed toward another individual). This would be where many Witty a fanboy would scream ‘there is no Private Language’ yet they are probably not quite aware of what Witty was saying and how he defined Language - he defined it in such a manner as to make any ‘Private Language’ impossible by way of how he framed the definition of “Language” ... nothing wrong with that, but I’m not going to misapply semantic value from one instance to another to suit my or anyone else’s purpose.

Then there are studies about split brain patients where we can see perfectly well that the separate hemispheres communicate with each other externally - one side of the brain guiding the other. In fact, when asked the same question each hemisphere gives a different answer and has different ‘attitudes’. It could be the ‘language’ faculty in question is nothing more than an externalised ‘communicative’ function between lobes/hemispheres.

Anyway, food for thought there (there are too many items to go into in detail in one post so thought I’d throw some out together). None of this is necessarily about Chomsky’s ideas or anyone else’s particular ideas of language. I just don’t look at this subject matter as self-contained or any position as writ in stone.

Now, back to the original quote from you above:

Are there overlaps and interactions? Yes, of course. I don't disagree with that. But we're trying to find out what language is and what the principles underlying it are.

Maybe it isn’t really a ‘distinct’ item at all - other than in a communicative sense. I don’t look at a knife and fork and think ‘knife and fork’, the ‘and’ is not perceived in any manner at all. What I mentioned above about signed language and the ability to apply ‘and’ was down to ‘communicative language’ not some internalised thought - that is not to say I don’t view ‘language’ (in the broader sense of the term) as function of thought. If the underlying principles is ‘thought’ then why are we not asking what ‘thought’ is? I don’t need ‘words’ to think or solve complex problems, yet it is apparently the case that articulating thought (an explicit example being the ‘written word’) allows me to ‘view’ my thoughts consciously - which hints at ‘theory of mind’.

Piaget did some interesting studies on children and how the used monologues in their early years; many times without concern for other listeners. I guess you’re familiar with that too?

The developmental stages in childhood often show a speeded up version of human evolution, we crawl on all fours rather than stand and walk - if raised by wolves we’d continue to crawl on all fours and our anatomy would take the strain.

Mouth are for eating and lungs are for breathing. The underlying principles of language must then be ‘eating’ and ‘breathing’ - the brain on top of this mechanism combines this with locomotion (to find air to breath and food to eat) and a memory to map the world for more efficient sourcing of said ‘food’ and ‘air’. So why not just say language’s underlying principles originate in memory and environmental mapping, which then became a function of consciousness and through ‘theory of mind’ took on a communicative function for thought too that was established by way of vocalisation, motor ability and spacial awareness through an ability to direct attention via memories/mapping/models.

If you do a quick TEDtalk search for ‘my child’s first words’ you’ll see how ‘vocal signs’ are mapped out in a landscape - nothing to do with grammar but it’s interesting to see how thoughts and experiences are accumulated in space and remembered.

One of my general ideas is that ‘language’ is more of less about an emotional narrative function used to instill memories and develop a set of thoughts that led to free formed abstract concepts - the rest is a matter of externalising and exploring differences of thought in ever growing intricacy. Any kind of ‘recursion’ is a matter of memory so maybe ‘language’ is spandrel of ‘memory’. After all explicit memory (‘semantic’ and ‘episodic’) are far more important for thought than anything else (without them there is no ‘thought’). The ‘language’ thing looks to me to be something to do with ‘episodic’ memory, yet I don’t believe ‘language’ preceded ‘thought’, it only preceded ‘communicative language’.

Well fine, but that's not saying much. Of course you agree language is something separate from, say, digestion. The visual system is separate from the circulatory system as an object of study. Are there overlaps and interactions? Yes, of course. I don't disagree with that. But we're trying to find out what language is and what the principles underlying it are.
— Xtrix

This is just speculation as much as what I have mentioned regarding language acquisition in adulthood. — I like sushi

No, it isn't. That other systems are involved in language is not speculation, it's fact. That the nervous system is involved in the visual system isn't speculation, it's fact.

This is a bit of a scatter gun approach. My intent here isn’t to ‘debate’ or ‘argue’. My intent is to explore the subject matter beyond the initial post made by you - I’m not really interested in talking about Merge in depth because I can, and have, read up on that elsewhere. — I like sushi

Exploring subject matter is fine. But - and I say this without hostility - you haven't given me the impression that you're very well versed in this field. This entire post is rife with confusions and mischaracterizations, to the point it's difficult to follow or even know what you're driving at.

Are there overlaps and interactions? Yes, of course. I don't disagree with that. But we're trying to find out what language is and what the principles underlying it are.

Maybe it isn’t really a ‘distinct’ item at all - other than in a communicative sense. I don’t look at a knife and fork and think ‘knife and fork’, the ‘and’ is not perceived in any manner at all. — I like sushi

Odd that you say this and yet earlier you said you're not interested in debating the "semantics" of language.

Linguistics is the study of language. According to the evidence, language is a system of thought. We can talk about what thought is, we can talk about neurolinguistics, we can talk anthropology, etc. This all informs the study of language, no doubt.

Mouth are for eating and lungs are for breathing. The underlying principles of language must then be ‘eating’ and ‘breathing’ - the brain on top of this mechanism combines this with locomotion (to find air to breath and food to eat) and a memory to map the world for more efficient sourcing of said ‘food’ and ‘air’. So why not just say language’s underlying principles originate in memory and environmental mapping, which then became a function of consciousness and through ‘theory of mind’ took on a communicative function for thought too that was established by way of vocalisation, motor ability and spacial awareness through an ability to direct attention via memories/mapping/models. — I like sushi

The underlying principles of language must be eating and breathing? Is this supposed to be a serious statement? This is what I was saying about utter confusion from your posts.

Language is structure-dependent with recursive properties that nearly always is for thought, not communication. Given these basic facts, we can learn something about language and the principles involved in language, like computational efficiency. Everything else is uninteresting armchair speculation until evidence is presented.

One of my general ideas is that ‘language’ is more of less about an emotional narrative function used to instill memories and develop a set of thoughts that led to free formed abstract concepts — I like sushi

Defining what language is apart from theory is a waste of time. We can define it any way you'd like. The question is whether it fits into an explanatory theory, what the evidence is for this theory, etc. This is how it's done in the sciences. So to say language is "more or less" about an "emotional narrative function" is incoherent unless it's explained and evidence is offered for this way of conceptualizing it.

Any kind of ‘recursion’ is a matter of memory so maybe ‘language’ is spandrel of ‘memory’. After all explicit memory (‘semantic’ and ‘episodic’) are far more important for thought than anything else (without them there is no ‘thought’). The ‘language’ thing looks to me to be something to do with ‘episodic’ memory — I like sushi

Memory in the case of word retrieval in some cases, sure. There have been people who lost long term memory and still are able to speak perfectly well, however. Regardless, memory is certainly involved in language. The sensorimotor system is involved in language. Intentions are involved. Emotions are involved. Communication is involved. So what? Where are you going with this? You've yet to say anything meaningful.

If you want to simply speculate with "maybe it's this, maybe it's that" then you're welcome to but forgive me if I'm underwhelmed, given there's an entire field out there, called lingusitics, that has studied this seriously.

No confusion here. Bye bye

No confusion here. — I like sushi

No, there's plenty of confusion - you just don't want to admit it. Go talk nonsense somewhere else.

Did thought exist without language, before language?

As a newbie to this conversation, and probably also the topic, I'll ask a newbie question: what if language can't be fully rationalised in evolutionary terms? Now I'm not pushing any kind of anti-evolutionary agenda here, but asking the question: what is the criterion that decides 'evolutionary advantage'? I had thought that was success in proliferation of the genome. But then all species prior to h. sapiens managed that without language as such. So language, along with the massively-expanded forebrain, develop in really a pretty rapid sequence, in evolutionary terms. So - why? And what if that question doesn't have an answer that can be given in solely biological or scientific terms?

I found a review of Chomsky's book Why Only Us? which addresses this question, which says the following:

The starting point [of investigating the nature and origins of human language] is 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. An 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 structure.

My belief is, language doesn't have a strictly scientific explanation. It's associated with intelligence, and I don't know if intelligence is something that can be understood through the evolutionary perspective; that once we become language-using, meaning-seeking beings, then we've escaped the gravitational pull of biology.

My belief is, language doesn't have a strictly scientific explanation. It's associated with intelligence, and I don't know if intelligence is something that can be understood through the evolutionary perspective; that once we become language-using, meaning-seeking beings, then we've escaped the gravitational pull of biology. — Wayfarer

I’m new to this myself. Would you use ‘thought’ instead of ‘intelligence’? I’m still trying to determine whether it’s true that ‘thoughts are "sentences in the head", meaning they take place within a mental language’. (Wikipedia.)

But I’ll go along with the use of language being thought and that what does get externalised is a strange, inefficient or inaccurate, form of communication. — Brett

Gazzaniga, split brain patients. You’ll see the two hemispheres ‘communicating’ externally. The ‘thinking’ is externalised. What this means for non-split brain persons like ourselves is for you to ponder on. It seems very much like the same thing happens in us yet we’re not quite so aware of the ‘external’ interaction of the different cognitive capacities - likely because we’ve come to see our ‘thinking’ as internal rather than as being a partially external means of thinking.

I’m new to this myself. Would you use ‘thought’ instead of ‘intelligence’? I’m still trying to determine whether it’s true that ‘thoughts are "sentences in the head", meaning they take place within a mental language’. (Wikipedia.) — Brett

We don’t need worded thought to solve complex problems. Chimps can do it and so can other humans with no ‘worded thought’. The use of ‘worded thought’ is taking the ’externalised world’ and bringing it to the ‘internal world’ so it can be modeled in more manageable ‘chunks’ of cognition.

Did thought exist without language, before language? — Brett

This is where the confusion begins. In the sense of what you may mean here (this here spoken/written for of communication), no, it isn’t necessary for ‘thought’ - as marked above in the instances of chimps. If you’re asking about what Chomsky is referring to, and consciously felt authorship, then it’s a much harder question to answer as we don’t know because what is being referred to as ‘language’ may be nothing more than something laying atop several other cognitive systems. That was why I took the ridiculous journey of reduction to pose language as a spandrel of ‘eating’, ‘locomotion’, and ‘breathing’. I did this to show that it is perhaps misleading to suggest that the reason we breath is to speak, and that to equate ‘language’ with some innate capacity is kind of leaning in this direction too - as there is no hard physical evidence for some ‘language module’ anymore than there is for some ‘conscious module’.

If some innate ‘language module’ exists - there are no cases of a genetic disorders that does this (FOXP2 is the closest we’ve got in terms of genes: far too complex a matter to distinguish any singular gene as responsible though), but that is a poor argument as there is limited understanding about every other aspect of human physiology in terms of genetics! Even still, even if, then are we talking about a ‘language module’ or would it be better to call ‘language’ a mere phenomenon repercussion of some deeper ‘cognitive module’ that just so happens to branch out into thought and make itself known via syntactic structures and our means of ordering data?

StreetlightX was correct in pointing out what appears to be a game of shifting the goal posts. It isn’t though. Simply put, a theory was put forward and over time it’s been shown to be wanting in several ways and since then other theories have popped up and older theories have adjusted to the evidence. MERGE has several other theories surrounding it and if isn’t, by any means, the most ‘popular’.

Anyway, this is an interesting read that fleshes out some of the problems and related issues of this broad topic:
http://www.haskins.yale.edu/Reprints/hl1755.pdf