[Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis
Andy Blunden
andyb@marxists.org
Sun Oct 28 16:23:13 PDT 2018
According to Corballis (from memory) Chomsky's idea is
totally at odds with the archaeological evidence available
today and actually in contradiction to Darwin's thesis of
incremental evolution. I don't know if the audio in that
link I sent works outside of OZ. The text on the page is
misleading.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
On 29/10/2018 8:19 AM, David H Kirshner wrote:
>
> Thanks, Henry and Andy.
>
>
>
> Yes, George Lakoff broke with Chomsky’s generative syntax
> in the 1960s to initiate generative semantics in part
> because of disagreement with the idea of autonomous grammar.
>
>
>
> But this response was independent of contemporary
> connectionist theory, so it could not directly counter
> Chomsky’s negative argument that some kind of grammatical
> capability must be hard wired because grammar is too
> complex to learn.
>
>
>
> I’m not trying to resurrect Chomsky. I’m asking if anyone
> knows how/if connectionist theory eventually came to play
> a decisive role in the language-origins debate as a
> counter to Chomsky’s innatist position.
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:*xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> *On Behalf Of *HENRY SHONERD
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 28, 2018 11:17 AM
> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis
>
>
>
> David,
>
> A problem with Chomsky is his autonomous grammar, some
> abstract capacity for recursiveness untethered to
> semantics, meaning. Where is conslousness?
>
> Andy,
>
> I think you are right that displacement should not be a
> dichotomous claim, that animals may have it in some
> rudimentary form, probably do from an evolutionary
> perspective. It’s just that without a language to talk to
> them about it we don’t know about what they are thinking
> about the past or the future, or their capacity for
> imagination.
>
> Henry
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 27, 2018, at 6:16 PM, Andy Blunden
> <andyb@marxists.org <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Henry, various animals can refer to past and future
> events and can also deceive. One could say that for
> non-humans animals these capacities are only
> rudimentary, but exaggerated dichotomous claims cannot
> be substantiated. Ever seen a crow movie on youtube?
> When I overslept this morning my cat Peek-a-Boo came
> and slapped me on the face.There's future thinking and
> future gestures.
>
> David, I didn't know about Corballis arguing that
> language developed as tool use. That is certainly not
> my guess, just that tool-production and word-use
> co-evolved. No the same thing. And really can't we let
> Chomsky's theory just rest as part of the history of
> science, like Freud's psychology?
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Andy Blunden
> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>
> On 28/10/2018 8:42 AM, David H Kirshner wrote:
>
> Andy and Henry,
>
>
>
> The capacity for displacement of our immediate
> reality in time and space would seem to be
> dependent on neural capacity, the size and
> organization of our brains. But the Andy and
> Corballis’ position that language evolved
> culturally as tool use, contradicts a more
> strongly innatist position that grammatical
> competence is hard-wired.
>
>
>
> Chomsky posited the innatist position in the
> mid-1950s at the start of the cognitive era based
> on the model of the serial digital computer.
> Noting the enormous complexity of grammar,
> Chomsky’s basic argument was that inductive
> learning of such a complex linguistic program was
> infeasible unless the basic structure of grammar
> was innately give (Universal Grammar). The UG
> hypothesis meant that learning the particular
> grammar of one’s native language just required
> setting some specialized switches in the pre-given
> grammar program.
>
>
>
> All of this was prior to the development of
> parallel distributed connectionist computer
> architectures that model learning as massive
> correlation of input and output elements rather
> than as induction of a rule-based program. I’m
> wondering if anyone knows how/if connectionism has
> impacted the debate over origins of language.
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> *On
> Behalf Of *HENRY SHONERD
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 27, 2018 11:43 AM
> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture,
> Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis
>
>
>
> Andy,
>
> Thanks for your interest in language, if not in
> linguistics. I recall chatting, arguing in fact,
> with you about the origin of language in terms of
> moldality: oral or gestural. I have a close friend
> whose research focus has been in signed language.
> It is his sense that language probably developed
> through gesture as sign. Two of Corballis’
> conjectures are of interest: 1) that oral
> language displaced gesture as the human form of
> communication and 2) that language allows us to
> “displace" in our communication, travel in time.
> (It also allows displacement in space, and to
> reference imaginary worlds, another form of
> displacement.) Animals, other than humans, can
> communicate, but, as far as we know, cannot
> displace in their communication. But why did
> gesture not become the dominant form of human
> communication? All signed languages displace. It’s
> probably fruitless to argue about which modality
> came first in human language. Maybe more
> interesting and important to me is the extent to
> which gesture is important in human communication
> today. (Linguists categorize the gestural aspects
> of language as paralanguage.) And why with spoken
> and written language we so often fail to
> communicate adequately, with one another and even
> with ourselves. Perhaps it is because the
> immediacy in time and space of gesture is
> short-circuited by displacement? We get caught up
> in our heads thinking, displaced in time and space
> from the here and now. I have a Vipassana
> meditation practice: I sit and focus on the
> breath. It’s that simple. I thereby do my best to
> be present in the here and now, to not displace.
> This is not easy, as anyone who meditates knows.
> But the payoff is becoming clearer and clearer to
> me: being present: Not pushing away that which is
> unpleasant, not grasping for that which is
> pleasant, and not deluding myself that living in a
> fantasy of lalaland can make me happy or able to
> live ethically in the world.
>
>
>
> It is the curse of humans that we can displace,
> but also a (the?) key to our domination of the
> planet. A mixed bag, so to spea:. Powerful but
> alienated as hell.
>
>
>
> Henry
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 26, 2018, at 5:52 PM, Andy Blunden
> <andyb@marxists.org
> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:
>
>
>
> That's fine, Peter. On reflection I should
> have omitted mention of "linguistics" because
> it was not actually that linguistics I was
> interested in.
>
> I was driving yesterday, and I heard a radio
> talk https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/where-did-language-come-from/10404342
>
> This is a topic which has long interested me.
> The speaker (which turned out to be Corballis)
> did a great job on Chomsky and several other
> theories that I was unaware of, I didn't get
> to hear his punch line, but he seemed really
> sound. So when I got home I did some internet
> searches and found that he did support my
> prejudice, that is, that tool-use and speech
> co-evolved in the origins of our species.
>
> I had made this claim in my article "Tool and
> Sign in Vygotsky's Development"
> https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/Tool%20and%20Sign%20in%20Vygotskys%20Development.pdf
>
> but never had any basis for making the claim
> and this was always preying on my conscience,
> so I was interested to know if Corballis was
> some crank making unfounded guesses, like me,
> or he was the real goods. I read stuff about
> his neuroscience research showing the
> interconnection between handling ancient tools
> and handling words, but this is so far out of
> my field (insofar as I have one at all), I
> couldn't rationally assess the idea.
>
> So! I am very pleased with the report you have
> given me. I have ordered his book "From Hand
> to Mouth – The Origins of Language" and look
> forward to its arrival in Australia, hopefully
> before Christmas!
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Andy Blunden
> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>
> On 27/10/2018 3:18 AM, Peter Feigenbaum
> [Staff] wrote:
>
> Andy,
>
>
>
> I'm familiar with his 1991 book entitled
> *The Lopsided Ape: Evolution of the
> Generative Mind*,
>
> and I found his perspective on the
> evolutionary developments of brain, mind,
> and language to
>
> be reasonable, coherent, and very
> compelling. When I read it (about 25 years
> ago), I was
>
> particularly focused on the evolutionary
> connections between handedness, left
> hemispheric
>
> dominance for language, and the evolution
> of the anatomical relations between the
> brain regions
>
> that control the fine motor movements of
> the thumb and those of the tongue.
>
>
>
> So when I saw your question, I pulled the
> book off the shelf and re-read the parts
> on the neural
>
> foundations of language and mental
> representation - and found them to be
> chock full of good
>
> and useful ideas! Alas, while I can
> attest that Corballis certainly has a
> sound working knowledge
>
> of the biological and neural structures of
> language, as well as the basic
> psychological functions that are
> sub-served by these structures, this
> seminal book doesn't really speak to his
> work as a linguist.
>
>
>
> In fact, the book lists him as affiliated
> with the Department of Psychology at the
> University of Aukland, and so I always
> assumed he was a psychologist. But if he
> is indeed a linguist, and if he has
> carried the quality and clarity of thought
> and understanding expressed in his older
> work on evolution of the human brain into
> his later life, I'd wager he's a pretty
> good linguist.
>
>
>
> May I ask what prompted your question?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 3:13 AM, Andy
> Blunden <andyb@marxists.org
> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:
>
> Is anyone familiar with the work of
> Michael C. Corballis as a linguist? Is
> he any good?
>
> andy
>
>
>
> --
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Andy Blunden
> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ethicalpolitics.org_ablunden_index.htm&d=DwMCaQ&c=aqMfXOEvEJQh2iQMCb7Wy8l0sPnURkcqADc2guUW8IM&r=mXj3yhpYNklTxyN3KioIJ0ECmPHilpf4N2p9PBMATWs&m=6rABLbgQXNmFR3I1MRyXWnwkYlMV8UA9eNMBReMJ2G8&s=_MacMRb35H57uhad46QsFEcixR0ZeRymdVs7-klmN8U&e=>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D.
>
> Director,
>
> Office of Institutional Research
> <https://www.fordham.edu/info/24303/institutional_research>
>
> Fordham University
>
> Thebaud Hall-202
>
> Bronx, NY 10458
>
>
>
> Phone: (718) 817-2243
>
> Fax: (718) 817-3817
>
> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu
> <mailto:pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181029/d44ba51f/attachment-0001.html
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list