i think actually this the state of the art view people are coming around to---though phrased differently (people are primed not to be blank slates). i haven't read kenneally but s. kirby who apparently she discusses in a sense does this 'just-so-theory' via agent based modeling. i do think animals have 'proto'language, even if they dont speak spanglish or quebecois or ghettoese. i'd imagine asl actually is more comprehensible to them---i even use it (or sign language in general) with animals --they seem to get it. as for grammar not everyone needs it---one big 'attack' on chomsky which is in the litterture looked at a tribe in amazonia who had very little math sense/aka 'recursion'. they also didn't need abstract algebra (beyond intuition).
--- On Wed, 7/15/09, Chris Doss <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: Chris Doss <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] More on Kenneally
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 1:25 PM
>
> WARNING: unfounded speculation about unverifiable things
> follows.
>
> It occured to me today on the metro that it is rather wierd
> that human beings have a built-in language-learning window
> in which they are receptive to language acquisition, as
> opposed to just being born with a language, which would make
> life much easier. It is as if what was selected for was not
> language itself, but the ability to learn a language (if
> that makes sense).
>
> Then it occured to me that it is not actually necessary to
> belong to a species that is so "linguistically primed" in
> order to acquire language, although it certainly helps (cf.
> Koko the gorilla).
>
> Which makes me speculate, unverifiably, that perhaps
> language, or protolanguage, was actually an invention of
> just such nonlinguistic beings. Perhaps long ago some smart
> prehuman hominid realized that, "hey, if I and the others in
> my troops were to associate certain sounds with certain
> things and behaviors and events, that could come in handy
> while on the hunt and running from toothy things and so
> forth." This would then be passed down through the culture,
> or protoculture, of the prehuman hominids, just as Koko
> teaches her children signing (I think), despite them having
> no inherent linguistic aptitude.
>
> Then it at least intuitively would make sense that what
> would be selected for would not be language (an artificial
> system) per se, but the ability to acquire it easily.
>
> Does this make any sense?
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>