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

[Tony Whitson <twhitson@UDel.Edu>]

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
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca