How children pick up a language: new comment (Humans)

by dhw, Monday, March 06, 2017, 12:53 (2606 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: Language is not the mind – it is the principle code the mind uses. It is a window into the soul.
David’s comment: this authoritative comment seals the discussion for me. Chomsky is correct if Paraha is as expressive as this author describes it. God would want humans to have this language ability.

Dhw: Briefly, all organisms need to communicate. Humans with their enhanced consciousness need enhanced forms of communication. I have never heard of anybody saying that language “is the mind”: it is the principal [I should have corrected this error earlier] code the mind uses in order to communicate. “Window into the soul” is nice and poetic – but it’s usually used of the eyes, which might be a much better guide. You only have to listen to our politicians to know that language can be used to hide as much as it reveals. There are said to be about 7000 different languages in the world, all serving the same purpose, which means inevitably they will have certain features in common, such as sounds that denote different objects or actions, but there is no universal “grammar”, and children learn to use the particular sounds, structures, “grammars” they hear in their particular environment. Feral children learn the language of the animals that have brought them up. All organisms must have an innate ability to learn the language of their species, using whatever means are available to them. If God exists and created life, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that he gave all organisms the ability to communicate in their own particular ways. One might ask why he gave humans different languages to communicate in, but my guess would be that he didn’t: mine would be that different sets of humans worked out their own sounds, structures, “grammars”.
DAVID: You are in disagreement with most linguists who think there is a universal grammar.

As in most of the subjects we discuss, there are different opinions, and it may depend to a large degree on how you define grammar. I would define it as a set of rules that govern the use of language. However, you say you agree with Chomsky. I have reproduced my last post above, so please tell me which points of mine you disagree with, and why.

TONY: From a biblical perspective, universal grammar makes sense, as all root languages have the same origin.

I echo David’s sentiments in welcoming you back! As you say, root languages by definition have the same origin. They are a perfect illustration of how evolution works, as the original form is changed beyond all recognition by a continual process of innovation and variation. Darwin’s theistic conclusion regarding species could be applied just as aptly to language: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one….from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”