>
>The thing about studying this as the evolution of a language suite (and
>none of this means that there can't be a capacity for syntax (structure)
>that is innate (tho nod to miles on that one). Reading it from her
>perspective, it's hard to understand why these folks are so wound up about
>it. And it's bizzarre to see people so het up that they are certain
>Chomsky et al used the word "miracle" when they didn't... What is it about
>the issue that gets people so het up that they can't see, as Kenneally
>says, that there is so much they agree on. Well, obviously, the narcissism
>of small differences -- which is a phrase we use as snarky criticism but,
>in fact, it's a well-known sociological observation: in order to disagree
>at all there must be a foundational scaffolding of disagreement.
>
>Anyway Chuck, if you want to send me your address, offlist, I'll send you
>a copy of the book.
gah. i didn't finish my thought. The thing about studying this as a language suite means you can't stay so narrowly focused: you have to draw from a wide swath of disciplines.
and, to me, as a sociologist and marxist, i am completely drawn to the way so much of whatever it is that makes human language *human* language and unique, though not separate from other forms of animal communication, is the social aspects of it all. which is to say, we are unique in so far as we are highly social animals, but what turns out to be capacities in the language suite exhibited by other animals seem to be so because of *their* sociality.
also, "scaffolding of disagreement" s/b "scaffolding of agreement."
shag