[Xmca-l] Re: Michael C. Corballis

Sat Oct 27 14:42:57 PDT 2018

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 <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>
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/20181027/535d2b53/attachment.html 