From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Fri May 06 2005 - 16:29:03 BST
Mark,
As it happens, my linguistics teachers were from that 5%, but that is
neither here nor there, or at least the question of the existence of deep
structure is not the main point I wanted to make. So assuming, for the sake
of argument, that deep structure is well-established, my point was that to
get from that to your statement "we now understand that language is rooted
in biology" involved a materialist belief. The same goes for all the
linguists who agree with the statement you quoted, but then, most linguists
are also materialists. My only reason for mentioning Sheldrake was not
because he has any particular expertise in linguistics, but because he has
suggested an alternative to material embodiment for such things as Universal
Grammar, or animal instinct, etc. Again, the point I am making is that your
statement ("we now understand that language is rooted in biology"), is a
consequence of materialist dogma.
- Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Steven Heyman" <markheyman@infoproconsulting.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: MD Access to Quality
Hi Scott,
Such glee in your voice when you find something to call me on! It's
kinda flattering, really.
On 3 May 2005 at 13:46, Scott Roberts wrote:
msh:
Yes, but thanks to Chomsky, we now understand that language is rooted
in biology.
Scott:
No we don't. In the first place, Chomsky's deep structure is a debated issue
(at least it was when I was studying linguistics in the 80's). In the second
place, if there is a deep structure or Universal Grammar, to say that it is
biological is merely to find the only place for it (brain hard-wiring) that
a materialist could accept. Drop the materialist assumption and it could be
elsewhere, e.g., in a Sheldrakian morphic form.
msh:
You're right; it's still debated, something like 95-5% in favor of
deep structure. The UG model has been virtually uncontested in the
study of linguistics for 45 years; at least that's my understanding.
Anyway, l made a comment to Matt in passing, not intending to
actually move the conversation in that direction, since my technical
grasp of Linguistics would not allow me to move it very far. What
I've read of the history of linguistics seems to indicate that every
linguist on the planet recognizes Chomsky as a genius who single-
handedly stood the subject on its head.
As for Sheldrake, you could be right. I don't know enough about
morphic forms to comment. Has he addressed the issue of a Universal
Grammar? Has he published and debated his linguistic ideas? If not,
let's talk about it when his name appears dozens of times in the
indexes of every linguistic text on earth.
That'll give me plenty of time to prepare myself. :-)
BTW, I googled _sheldrake linguistics_ and came up empty. I did find
an interesting article in Science Daily, date 3/10/05, that says that
linguistic models are JUST NOW starting to drift a little away from a
strict Universal Grammar, but it doesn't mention that they are
drifting toward Sheldrake and morphic forms.
"For several decades the model for studying linguistics has included
the assumption that human brains come built with a genetically
specified 'universal grammar', and that the features of human
languages are derived from variations in how this universal grammar
mechanism can operate. No matter how complicated, or mutually
unintelligible they are, all languages still follow basic guidelines
common to all of them."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050223150852.htm
Best,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder 'why, why, why?' Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he understand." - Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archives: Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archives: Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 06 2005 - 16:38:33 BST