[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] Re: Using the term institution in a very broad sense

For the principle below, re: grammar, I should have also provided the analogical situation, re:phonology, that may be easier to grasp quickly:

Linguists could invent an artifical language based on a phonemic system that could theoretically be used (spoken and heard) by a species whose vocal and auditory apparatuses are different from our own, but not by us. It might be a semiologically adequate language for such species. It would not work for us, for reasons that are physiological, not semiological.

On Sun, 19 Jun 2011, Tony Whitson wrote:

thanks, Martin

While linguists might be able to construct artificial grammars that could structure linguistic communication in a non-human population whose psychological processing is different from our own, only a grammar that can be processed by our human psychological apparatus could function as a real grammar in a real human language.

The obverse is that a psychological apparatus must be capable of processing some semiosically adequate grammar if it is to function as the psychological apparatus for members of a language-using species.

xmca mailing list