[lbo-talk] More on Kenneally

[shag carpet bomb]

At 11:14 AM 7/11/2009, Chuck Grimes wrote:
>By analogy, I suspect that neurobiology and linguistics will never
>account for either our space-thinking or its overlayed language
>structures because these are not properly speaking, `in' us. We are in
>effect looking in the wrong place. These transformations (of motion)
>exist in the dynamic interplay between how our bodies work and the
>space configuration we are adapted to. On the other hand that doesn't
>mean we are not aware of these transformations at some perhaps less
>than conscieous level and don't use them.
>
>But that's my theory... back to Kenneallys story.

i don't know if you've gotten to the part, but the place i found most 
interesting and most compelling, was the idea that syntax developed because 
of our increasingly complex human interactions in a social order. it's in 
the second half of the book, related to some 10+ year-long daily studies of 
a group of apes (I can't remember -- apes, monkeys, chimps...?) Anyway, 
they have to understand the social hierarchy in their own family, how their 
own family fits in the larger social hierarchy of other families, and then 
to be able to determine how a couple of individuals from different families 
should relate to one another -- they have distinctive calls indicating 
superordinate/subordinate. Anyway, if I'm remembering correctly, the idea 
is that the capacity for syntax is related to this same capacity that must 
have developed in tandem with increasingly complex and interdependent 
animal societies.

Like I said: the part that fascinating me the most was the social and 
cultural aspects of the research.

enjoy!

shag
--

"let's be civil and nice, but not to the point of obeying the rules of 
debate as defined by liberal blackmail (in which, discomfort caused by a 
challenge is seen as some vague form of harassment)."

                                    -- Dwayne Monroe, 11/19/08

--
http://cleandraws.com
Wear Clean Draws