How children pick up a language: denying Chomsky 2 (Humans)

by dhw, Friday, September 09, 2016, 13:03 (2996 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: “Universal grammar appears to have reached a final impasse. In its place, research on usage-based linguistics can provide a path forward for empirical studies of learning, use and historical development of the world's 6,000 languages."
David's comment: Very long article which makes many points that refute Chomsky, but in no sense removes the uniqueness of human language and speech.-dhw:I agree with all the points refuting Chomsky. If we take language to mean human language, then of course human language is unique. If we take language to mean a system of communication, all organisms have their own unique languages.-DAVID: 'Unique' simply means peculiar to that group. No language comes close to human communication. It is different in kind. I won't let comments like yours get by.
-I agree with your first two statements. However, we have spent many hours on Adler's distinction between kind and degree, which to me is a non issue. I see language - like so many of our constructs - as a product of our enhanced consciousness. Our cities are anthills and rabbit warrens developed beyond all recognition; our schools and sports are animals' teaching and play developed beyond all recognition; our societies are packs, herds, colonies developed beyond all recognition; and our languages are grunts and howls and roars and songs developed beyond all recognition. Regardless of the physical differences that influence what and how organisms build, teach, interact and communicate, the progression from comparatively simple to enormously complex is clear in all these contexts. Different in degree, different in kind? Why is this so important to you, especially since you believe in common descent?