It strikes me that Shag's point, and that of the book (that I've not read a page of or anything off-list about), is that studies of language have simultaneously tended towards the reductive and absolutist - claiming, often, that the more we know about less and less, the more we can say about more and more.... Now, there's some foolishness.
-A
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Alan Rudy wrote:
>
> Do I take it that the language-rooted-in-natural-selectionists are
> psychobiophysicalists and that these folks take Chomsky's stance that
> language is grounded in very specific brain structures (if I'm right
> about that) and run with it in a manner which suborns everything we know
> about the coevolution of human bodies and human sociality? That they
> run with it in a manner which suborns everything we ought to know to be
> the necessarily (if well nigh impossible to support with the kind of
> biophysical data evolutionists so like) historically contingent,
> physically spandreled and analytically stochastic coevolution of human
> bodies, sociality and language?
>
> -----
>
> Alan, I can't construe this. Perhaps I'm just slow this morning, but I
> get lost several times intrying to pull this paragraph into focus. Could
> you spread it out a bit?
>
> Carrol
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>