p.s. i was wrong. the article i mentioned was from 94 in science, while their evolution article is older from 90 and on the web. it actually looks like a rehash of arguments other people made (which may be why i didn't remember it), most of which i think have some validity. the field is very politicized (or 'sectarian' as its called in politics).
--- On Mon, 7/13/09, mart <media314159 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: mart <media314159 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] More on Kenneally
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Monday, July 13, 2009, 1:36 PM
>
> i think i read the pinker and bloom article(s). their
> main point seemed to be there were actually 2 language
> learning systems, which was a way to solve or get around the
> empiricist/innatist debate (like the selfish./altruistic
> debate). it turned out, surprisingly, that both
> systems exist (just as it turned out people surprisingly are
> both selfish and altuistic (cept me, and mother teresa who
> are saints, and take what we call donations or spiritual
> protection money). some things are inate and
> others learned!!! i think they showed this by
> discovering that children learning language make some
> errors, but not others. hence they were programmable,
> eg to become lbo subscribers.
>
> i actually don't kbnow how this relates to evolution, but i
> think the idea is the innate system was more of a relic,
> while newer stuff shows the cognitive apparatus
> evolves. it wasn't a study however of dna
> change or morphology change.
>
> i imagine in 10 minutes you can google to find
> out. there's a ton of this stuff on the
> web. i wonder if that is important, or whether instead
> dissing kennealy is where its at.
> i personally find pinker pretty appaling. but he fits well
> at MIT keeping the rock of solidarity of ideology with a
> smooth face. the fact that kenneally
> apparently devotes a chapter to him (and he is hc evo psych)
> is a bad sign; though she has exact opposities in their too
> (eg lieberman who is pretty hc anti-chomksyian). (i
> just read the amazon review---its all you really need these
> days, to be an expert---i actually have a university where
> you can pay and we'll give you a rigorous phD in amazon
> reviews---any field. ). also, apparently
> she leaves out alot better stuff though any book is
> finite.
>
> www.axiomsandchoices.blogspot.com
>
> --- On Mon, 7/13/09, ravi <ravi at platosbeard.org>
> wrote:
>
> > From: ravi <ravi at platosbeard.org>
> > Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] More on Kenneally
> > To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> > Date: Monday, July 13, 2009, 12:35 PM
> > On Jul 11, 2009, at 11:14 AM, Chuck
> > Grimes wrote:
> > > So far what Kenneally is presenting is the
> > intellectual history of a
> > > change in social and biological sciences, that
> amonted
> > to a return to
> > > basic questions that had been abandoned by an
> earlier
> > generation.
> > >
> > > The basic plot is that Chompsky and Gould as
> reigning
> > intellectuals of
> > > their era, dodged the obvious question about how
> did
> > humans and their
> > > psycho-social organization, culture and
> languages
> > evolve from some
> > > prior animal society?
> > > Their graduate students went back to these
> questions
> > that had been
> > > previously off the table. That's the general
> plot, so
> > far. Kenneally
> > > was interested in this question as a grad
> student.
> > Where did language
> > > come from, but it was officially banned in
> > linguistics.
> > >
> >
> > I don't think it was "banned", but yes, just as with
> > certain explanations for K-T extinction and
> Lamarckism, it
> > was frowned upon, indeed driven by Chomsky's lack of
> > interest or faith in it. But this has all been well
> known
> > for a long time... check any EvoLang discussion...
> and
> > Chomsky himself has noted (in true open-minded
> fashion) that
> > evolutionary explanations of language have reached
> further
> > than he had expected.
> >
> > I don't think Chomsky "dodged the obvious question"
> (or
> > "basic questions" as you write in the previous
> paragraph),
> > at all. It is some sort of hyper-Dobzhkanskyish
> > adaptationist commitment that would give meaning to
> your
> > underlying notion that "culture and languages evolve
> from
> > some prior animal society". To stretch my point:
> should
> > poets be worried about the "basic" and "obvious"
> question of
> > the evolutionary history of the iambic pentameter?
> >
> > Did (and does) Chomsky think that language was an
> > adaptation? He does not. He lays out a few reasons why
> and
> > he also (IIRC) explains why he is not as interested in
> that
> > question.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Kenneally has her limits, but they are very
> common
> > limits that many
> > > science and academic mentalities share. On the
> other
> > hand, I had no
> > > idea that many sorts of questions about the
> origins of
> > language,
> > > thought, culture, art I was interested as a
> student
> > were pro-actively
> > > not discussed, and not studied. Answers to these
> kinds
> > of questions
> > > were considered unknowable. There was in effect
> an
> > intellectual ban on
> > > asking or answering them not just in the
> sciences, but
> > humanities,
> > > philosophy, and art. This is why the
> structuralist
> > like Levi-Strauss
> > > and Jean Piaget interested me so much. Right or
> wrong,
> > at least they
> > > got started on some of these questions and
> provided
> > some answers of
> > > their own.
> >
> >
> > I think the history is deeper. Chomsky's greatest
> > contribution was that he departed from a holistic
> approach
> > in the soft sciences to an intentionally minimalist
> > programme with much smaller scope that yielded rich
> > results.
> >
> >
> >
> > > As page 75, this is the basic summary. Animal
> studies
> > from
> > > Savage-Rimbough indicated primates think and
> > understand limited
> > > language. These elements indicate an
> evolutionary
> > basis for the
> > > development of human languages.
> >
> >
> > I am not sure what you mean by "evolutionary basis".
> If by
> > that you mean simply that it’s a feature we
> inherited from
> > a common ancestor (common with primates), sure, why
> not. No
> > problem. On the other hand, if you mean that human
> language
> > is an adaptation, then I fail to see how the above
> > establishes that.
> >
> >
> > > Child studies in language acquisition
> > > from Pinker and Bloom indicate adaptive changes
> as a
> > result of natural
> > > selection.
> >
> >
> > Can you give us pointers?
> >
> > --ravi
> >
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk