What is Digg?Sponsored by wix.com
43 Comments
- inactive, on 07/08/2009, -0/+18ok, I found it, here it is:
http://fora.tv/2009/03/20/Daniel_Everett_Endangere ... - inactive, on 07/08/2009, -0/+10This topic is so interesting and the clip is so short!!
Im going back to look for the whole clip. - AndrewMoyer, on 07/08/2009, -0/+9Reading that reminds me of reading another programmer's code.
- u8eR, on 07/08/2009, -1/+7I still think Chomsky is correct. Just because the Piraha do not use recursion, that doesn't mean it's not the "essence of human language" (something Chomsky does claim it to be). Chomsky is correct by stating that just because a people might choose to crawl like crabs, it does not say anything useful about humans' walking capabilities.
- LokitheComplex, on 07/08/2009, -0/+5The apparatus for learning and constructing language seems to be innate.
I seems this way to me because its pretty much universal to societies. It is so inter related to human activity. Humans just don't function without it.
Language learning seems to come naturally at an early age. And adults seem to automatically do "baby talk" to babies as if adults were preprogrammed to teach babies their language.
Also all languages are pretty much translatable no matter what form.
Also other animals have forms of communication that are complex and I expect we would agree are innate.
I'm sure there is plenty of other evidence. - borez, on 07/08/2009, -1/+6
- borez, on 07/08/2009, -4/+8The dog the boy who was fishing owned bit the farmer, the farmer who was bitten by the dog the boy who was fishing owned got the gun and shot the dog the boy who was fishing owned and owned the dog.
- zephc, on 07/08/2009, -0/+4Yeah, here I am using my mouth and lungs like a chump
- damnshoes, on 07/08/2009, -3/+7when can we start communicating telepathically?
- zephc, on 07/08/2009, -1/+5Did you watch the video? It was a clip from a longer lecture debunking the position by forward by Chomsky et al. that recursion is the essence of human language. Everett explains that the Piraha (a tribe in the Amazon) don't appear to have recursive statements in a sentence, rather simple sentences have to be joined in a linear fashion, and hope that the other person understands the context.
- DarthVolta, on 07/08/2009, -1/+4you're going to get buried making a comment like that on a linguistics-themed article. the fact is, education only has an effect on language in a prescriptive way. 'uneducated' people are just as capable of complex language as educated people - the difference often is vocabulary, and the ability to follow the prescriptive (rather than descriptive) rules of grammar.
as much as i hate to say it, and as much as the common errors bother me, i think that eventually, there won't be a difference between 'too' and 'two' and 'to,' or between 'there,' 'they're' and 'their,' because people will stop recognizing the difference. and despite what people say now, it won't be the end of language. it'll just be change. - rolf, on 07/09/2009, -0/+3Abstraction is useful and I don't see how telepathy or unlimited bandwidth will take away from that. Let's say there is telepathy, you can talk about nouns well enough, a cat, you show your subject a picture of a cat. If you are talking about a specific person, you show them that person's face.
But what if you are talking about mammals? Will you transmit the word, or show them 40 different animals? And will they get the concept or will they interpret it as something like "zoo", "noah's arc", or "pets"?
Or what about metamorphosis? You show them a caterpillar turning into a butterfly? Will they get the concept or think you are communicating literally about caterpillars into butterflies?
Or what about Zeitgeist? It's a real concept, but I wouldn't even know how to transmit that as anything but a word.... see what I'm getting at? - carbonetc, on 07/08/2009, -0/+3Been eagerly awaiting the paperback of his book.
More about the Piraha: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/04/16/0704 ... - glasszach, on 07/08/2009, -0/+3I'm reading Snow Crash right now, its not on the same note, but it follows a similar tune of the human language and how it has evolved.
- Atario, on 07/08/2009, -0/+3I think my favorite part is where the guy was a Christian missionary, but then he met these awesome natives and *they* changed *his* mind. With simple questions like "well, have you met this Jesus?".
- thcobbs, on 07/08/2009, -0/+2That's what she said.
- rolf, on 07/08/2009, -1/+3You'd probably still need a language...
- ProfessorRiffs, on 07/08/2009, -0/+2Vescere bracis meis.
- Atario, on 07/08/2009, -2/+4Speaking of preserving language...
How does the word "debunking" belong there? - ElberethElensar, on 07/08/2009, -0/+2Well, obviously a very large portion of language is acquired after birth, so why would you think language has to be innate?
- smokinDND, on 07/08/2009, -1/+3isnt the essence of language, is to comunicate? such as sign language does not need a sentence for example.
- LokitheComplex, on 07/08/2009, -2/+4I just can't see language being anything other than innate.
- zoomaKabu, on 07/08/2009, -2/+4Agreed. Piraha is a "language" used by less than 400 people (basically an extended family). It extremely simple. Klingon or emoticons can probably describe more complex ideas than can Piraha.
- HowardBeale7, on 07/08/2009, -0/+2prezerf the languange
- Atario, on 07/08/2009, -1/+3Yes, but you don't debunk an essence. You debunk an assertion. Perhaps the submitter meant "Debunking A Certain Idea About What The Essence Of Language Is"?
- feignNU, on 07/09/2009, -0/+1"Well, it might be that they do in fact use recursion. Unfortunately, Everett is the only academic intimately familiar with the language."
This is a perfectly valid point, and if someone came along tomorrow with convincing evidence that the Piraha do actually use recursion in their language, there would obviously be no issue. But that would also be kind of a boring outcome, and for the sake of discussion, I think the really interesting question is "what would it mean for Chomsky's model if there were a natural language that was not recursive?"
"Nevertheless, there's nothing at all to suggest these people COULD NOT use recursion. They could."
This depends entirely on what you mean by "they could". Are you saying the Piraha could learn English and then utter recursive sentences in English? Because I don't think anyone is claiming that they could not. Or are you saying that they could utter recursive sentences in the Piraha language, but they simply chose not to, like an English speaker who only uses non-recursive sentences even though English is capable of more? Because as I understand him, Everett is absolutely claiming the opposite of this, ie, that it is not possible to render recursive sentences in the Piraha language, and I think that if that claim can be backed up with evidence, then it is a real counter-example for the Chomskyan.
How does Chomsky's model account for the fact that a group of people with the same basic wetware as every other human being developed a natural language in which recursive sentences are impossible? This is a legitimate question to pose to the Chomskyan precisely because Chomsky's point is that the "essence" of natural language is recursion, and that this essence arises directly as a result of our unique biological make-up. So assuming that recursive sentences are in fact impossible in the Piraha language (which as I've agreed, could be wrong, but at least I think this is what Everett is claiming), then what we have here is an example of the human biological make-up failing to give rise to a recursive language. How can you claim that the Chomskyan doesn't have to account for such a thing? - u8eR, on 07/08/2009, -1/+2Well, it might be that they do in fact use recursion. Unfortunately, Everett is the only academic intimately familiar with the language. Nevertheless, there's nothing at all to suggest these people COULD NOT use recursion. They could. So, quite to the contrary, the onus is on the anti-Chomskyan to demonstrate they could not.
- netneutrality, on 07/08/2009, -2/+3Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
- raydeen, on 07/08/2009, -1/+2We'd most likely be talking in pictures, not in words.
- bradrmattison, on 07/08/2009, -0/+1nolite irridere nos qui bene didicunt.
- carbonetc, on 07/08/2009, -2/+3Depends. Language is raw feels and intuitions after being compressed and abstracted. If telepathy was the direct transmission of those things and we had all the bandwidth we could ever need, would we still find compression and abstraction useful?
- bradrmattison, on 07/08/2009, -0/+1don't you mean "vesce"?
- LokitheComplex, on 07/09/2009, -0/+1I can't argue with the counter points here and I have heard some of them before. I was aware that there is a move away from the innateness of language. I just still find it hard to believe. I just don't think language is an invented skill like learning to use a computer. It seems self generating.
Is it beyond reason to think we have not yet found the universal grammar or elements that unites the structure of language?
I'm just skeptical of the blank slate view of humanity.
If people are beyond translation then people are beyond understanding.
How do other people feel about it? - antdude, on 07/08/2009, -1/+2Should had replied to yourself. ;)
- zxjams, on 07/08/2009, -0/+1nope, deponent verb
- TimmyOToole, on 07/09/2009, -0/+1Medium is the best medium to reach the medium.
- Ruger11mcrdpi, on 07/09/2009, -0/+1That's what she said.
- qiemem, on 07/09/2009, -1/+1"The apparatus for learning and constructing language seems to be innate."
Certainly the hardware that allows us to learn language is there from birth, but suppose as you say that the mechanism for constructing language is there as well (note that the former does not imply the latter). Then we should see universal structural properties among all languages. Its my understanding that linguists were concerned for a long time with compiling a list of each universal property shared by languages. However, they kept finding exceptions until all they were left with, as demonstrated by the Chomsky's paper that Everett referred to, was recursion. However, Everett claims to have found a language that doesn't even have that. So, if Everett is right, then this theory of an innate apparatus for construction doesn't hold up.
"I seems this way to me because its pretty much universal to societies. It is so inter related to human activity. Humans just don't function without it."
Just because every society has language doesn't mean that the mechanisms for generating language are the same, just that we are all very good at learning language. I won't disagree that we have an innate ability to learn language easily (barring certain disorders of course).
"Also all languages are pretty much translatable no matter what form."
Sorry, but this is total *****. Translation is notoriously difficult. Check out Hofstadter's "Le Ton beau de Marot: In Praise of the Music of Language" to see just how complex it can get. The philosopher Quine has also done significant work demonstrating how translation may be literally impossible in some cases and what the consequences of that would be. I think he went on to argue that any true translation is impossible, but I'm less familiar with that work.
"I'm sure there is plenty of other evidence."
Historically, I think most linguists since Chomsky's work in the 60s would agree. However, it seems opinions are starting to change, largely due to Everett.
Oh, BTW, I don't claim to be a linguist or have studied this stuff much. I just think its really interesting. So I could totally be wrong on a lot of this. - linksys39, on 07/08/2009, -1/+1Great topic yet i do wish it was longer
- zephc, on 07/09/2009, -1/+1But it IS an assertion, by Chomsky, whose *assertion* is that "the essence of language is recursion". I agree with Everett, recursion is an emergent property of language as it grows in complexity with the society that uses it.
- ElberethElensar, on 07/09/2009, -1/+1Actually, I am a linguist and all of qiemem's points are accurate!
Also:
"Also other animals have forms of communication that are complex and I expect we would agree are innate."
Yes, many animal communication systems do seem to be innate, but that is one of the main differences between human and animal language. Although there are some pretty cool animal communication systems, none of them are at all close to the complexity of all human languages. - feignNU, on 07/08/2009, -3/+2I think that is a pretty weak reason to dismiss this counter example. If Chomsky's model says the essence of human language is recursion, and there is indeed a human language which does not use recursion, then Chomsky's model, if it is actually correct, should be able to explain why. The implicit explanation you've given is that the Piraha have "chosen" not to use recursion in their language, but that seems far from obvious to say the least. I think it is incumbent upon the Chomskyan to do one of the following: either demonstrate that the Piraha language is not actually a counter-example to Chomsky's model (ie, show that they DO in fact use recursion), or if it is a counter-example, demonstrate how Chomsky's model is capable of accounting for it (ie, show that they COULD use recursion, but simply don't).
- inactive, on 07/08/2009, -7/+1Where do uneducated Americans fit into this?
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is