Bernard H. Bichakjian
BHB@Post.Harvard.edu
THE CANONICAL VIEW
Humans have
language
Sub humans
do not
… that humans
are born with
a Universal Grammar
coded in their genes
THIS A MATERIAL VIEW
Is it because
abstract thinking
is alleged to be subjective?
Is it because it better dovetails into
syntactic operations expressed in
programming language?
Maybe both?
is in the words of Saussure
a faculté de langage,
i.e., an immaterial potential
that has enabled us to forge and use a
system of verbal communication.
Humans can also count
but no one would claim
are variants of
a core counting model
coded in our genes
that the known
quinquesimal,
decimal,
vigesimal,
sexagesimal,
and the modern binary
systems
Humans have a potential for
counting, and that potential is
immaterial
Humans can also dance.
They can dance
the minuet
But no one would claim that
humans carry a core dance step
in their genes.
the waltz
Humans have a potential for
rhythmic motion, and that
potential is immaterial.
the tango
We find our way
and
we make maps
But we don’t have a
rudimentary compass
or a model map
coded in our genes
that not everyone becomes
a mathematician
a dancer
or a surveyor
even among individuals
without congenital deficits
not everyone acquires language
that’s the case of feral
children
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ljVd6XS-J0s
suggests two things:
1. Language is not an organ-like entity, and language
acquisition is not a case of gene expression.
2. We tap our various potentials to the extent they are
needed in our everyday lives.
Language is indispensable for our survival;
so, we are pressed into becoming linguistically proficient ASAP.
Counting is important, but not indispensable;
so, we attain a measure of proficiency.
Dancing is a flourish and surveying a technique;
so, not everyone learns to tango, and map making is left to the experts.
The attendant relativism of Universal Grammar is politically convenient.
If all humans are endowed with the same skeletal grammar,
then all languages are gratuitous variants of a unique model.
No linguistic feature, present here and absent there, can be claimed
to be more or less advanced than its homolog elsewhere.
All homologous features are equally advanced ,
and all linguistic systems are equal.
The Italians have a say: “Non è vero, ma è bello.”
Turning the words around, one may ask: “It’s beautiful alright, but is it true?”
“The notion that all languages are
somehow exactly equal in
complexity and expressiveness is
often taught as scientific truth in
linguistics courses.
Charles Ferguson
(1921–1998)
But, as far as I know, there is no evidence at all
that this is the case” (1984:162).
There are no signs of
a grammar gene
has been
unambiguous
“… ideology – of any kind – & science
are at best inappropriate bedfellows.
Jim Watson
Science may indeed uncover unpleasant truths,
but the critical thing is that they are truths.
Any effort, whether wicked or well-meaning, to
conceal truth or impede its disclosure is
destructive.” (James Watson, 2003:372).
Contrary to what has been claimed
• Language is NOT a mental organ
• Language acquisition is NOT a matter
of gene expression
• Humans are NOT born with a Universal
Grammar coded in their genes
This has been my position for decades
I have been arguing for decades
• that we have a potential for language, not a blue print,
• that languages have evolved, as linguistic communities
have sought to make their systems of thought and
communication
• ever-more powerful
• and ever-more efficient,
• and that they have done so at their own pace and along
their own pathways
I have received more criticism than support,
but concurring views are emerging.
In a seminal paper, Nick Evans and Steve Levinson have argued that
Nick Evans
• “The claims of Universal Grammar … are
empirically false, unfalsifiable, or misleading in that
they refer to tendencies rather than strict universals.
• Structural differences should instead be accepted
for what they are,
• and integrated into a new approach to language and
cognition that places diversity centre stage”
(Evans and Levinson 2009:429).
Steve Levinson
Describing what could be seen as a
“follow up” article, Michael Dunn,
the lead author, has stated:
“We show that each of these [four] language families evolves
according to its own set of rules, not ... to a universal set of rules.
That is inconsistent with the ... “universality theories” of grammar;
it suggests rather that language is part of
• not a specialised module distinct from the rest of cognition,
• but more part of broad human cognitive skills.”
In the remaining part of my paper,
I will argue and, to the extent possible, demonstrate
• that as incipient speakers cobbled their initial linguistic
systems, they improvised grammatical implements on
the basis of their perception of the outside world,
• but that as languages evolved, the grammatical
implements molded on the outside world were gradually
replaced with alternatives conceived in the mind
exclusively for linguistic purposes.
• that this was an important process whereby languages as
systems of thought and communication became
• ever-more powerful
• and ever-more efficient.
Visual
Cerebral
Perceptual
Conceptual
Grammatical features
molded on the outside world
Grammatical features
developed in the mind
for linguistic purposes
Pictogram
Alphabet
Pictogram
Picture
• tail
Alphabet
meaning
Acrophonic principle
“d” as in “dog”
Picture
meaning
Extension
• end
Picture
sound
Homonymy
• tale
Picture
sound
Rebus
• tailor
• tailgate
…
t
Pictogram
Alphabet
stylized
head
of an ox
stylized &
rotated 90º
inch
metric system
foot
yard
Protagoras: "Man is the measure of all things” ... material and mental!
human
compact
long
animal
Practically
Disappeared
vegetal
solid
liquid
mineral
Nouns
Verbs
active
Syntax
active
Agent
Ergative case
Patient
Absolutive case
stative
stative
Patient
Absolutive case
stative
Nouns
active
Masculine
Feminine
Ø
stative
Neuter
Verbs
active
stative
stative
active/passive
deponent
active
adjective
Syntax
Agent
Ergative case
Subject
nominative case
Patient of a
stative verb
Patient
Absolutive case
Patient of a
active verb
Direct object
accusative case
Nouns
• No active/stative
distinction.
• All nouns can
occupy all
syntactic functions
Verbs
• No active/stative
distinction.
• All verbs can
have a subject.
• Transitive verbs
can be put in the
passive voice.
Adjectives
Syntax
Can be
• No agent/patient
• predicative
distinction.
• attributive. • The action can
be expressed
from the angle of
all participants
Nouns:
No subcategorization. All nouns can be subject.
(Originally, neuter nouns were stative and, as such, could not be
agents.)
Verbs:
No subcategorization. All verbs can take a subject.
(Originally, only active verbs could have an agent.)
Adjectives: They can be attributive or predicative.
(Originally, they were stative verbs and, as such, only predicative.)
Syntax:
All argument alignments are possible:
(1) John gave Mary a present.
(2) A present was given to Mary by John
(3) Mary was given a present by John
(Originally, only [1] was possible.)
Aspect
Chained
to the present
Tense
my mind
is free to travel
I can express the
actions that are
• in progress
• completed
• resulting state
I can express
the actions
• I saw
• I am seeing
• I shall see
Stem
modulation
• Vowel alternation
sing~sang~song
edit~ēdit
• Syllable reduplication
canit~cecinit
• Conson’t reduplication
kasara~kassara
broke~broke to pieces
rhythmic drum beats
Function
words
Suffixes
Markers of case,
person, degree,
tense, mood, etc.
Function
words
prepositions,
pronouns,
degree adverbs,
auxiliaries, etc.
• Stem modulation provides only a limited number of distinctions.
• Suffixes provide more distinctions,
• but can trigger morphological irregularities
• and therefore language acquisition problems and delays.
• Function words can provide
• unlimited distinctions
• and no language acquisition problems.
That we are a cerebral species,
that we have achieved our survival and indeed our dominion over many
of the elements by using our brain and finding cerebral solutions
is common knowledge.
What needed to be stressed and demonstrated is that the quest for
cerebral alternatives also applies to language.
Expectedly enough, languages started with features molded on the outside world, but the perceptual prototypes gradually morphed into mentally
constructed alternatives, especially conceived for linguistic purposes.
Harry Jerison has argued that language has provided humans
with a cognitive dimension that enables us to elaborate
knowledge “not only from sensory mappings that we share with
other anthropoids as well as most mammals, but by important
inputs to the mapping that comes from our language ‘sense’ as it
has evolved in Homo sapiens.”
The foregoing has shown that the trend from sensory mapping to
cognitive processing has continued, whereby languages have
become ever-more powerful instruments for the organization and
transfer of knowledge.
BHB@Post.Harvard.edu
http://www.bichakjian.com/bernard/