[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:
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