> Miles Jackson wrote:
>
> > I have to say that's my initial reaction to Michael S's precis about
> > "what's in the head that enables us to speak". What's fundamental to
> > the development of language is its role in social relations, not
> > what's in our heads. My fondness for late Wittgenstein is definitely
> > showing here!
Sure. But people have certain physical limitations. We only have two arms, for example.
If we're materialists, we have to assume -- don't we? -- that language has some physical basis in the heads and/or bodies of the people who do language. Is it so far-fetched to think that whatever that basis is, it might constrain our linguistic capacity?
--
Michael Smith mjs at smithbowen.net http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org