Reading Everett’s How Language Began. Underwhelmed so far. The book obsesses on arguing against Chomsky’s view of syntax and evolution without (so far) addressing less extreme views. Conflicts the idea of universal grammar with Chomskian single mutation evolution.
-
Show this thread
-
From what I can tell so far, the basic argument is this: Chomsky’s single mutation claim is wrong. (I agree.) Therefore, language is a cultural invention. Most of us are in the middle.
3 replies 1 retweet 9 likesShow this thread -
Everett: H. erectus invented language. How? They invented symbols. Grammar comes for free with culture. Why erectus and not other animals? “Easy” he states. Because “the human brain.” Looking forward to the explanation in the brain chapter.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Everett: “must be cautious about the popular bit misleading idea idea that the brain is a computer, an artifact, very unlike an organ.” I’ll say! Since no serious cognitive scientist ever said such a thing. The idea is that the brain *computes*. A very different claim.
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likesShow this thread -
E: “ Little evidence for genetically specialized tissue for language” Some would disagree. Even still, I don’t know how anyone can conclude this based on our current coarse grained methods. Esp. When E cautioned against absence of evidence logic in another contex.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
Asserts that many linguists and cognitive science hold as a “core belief” that the brain is a computer. Well, again, yes. The brain computes, but he’s confusing the digital computers with computing.
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likesShow this thread -
E on diffs btw brain and computer: “neurology is ultimately not the same kind of thing as electronics. Computers lack biological functions, emotions, and culture.” I feel like much of the argumentation in this book lacks the depth of analysis that this quote wears on its sleeve
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
E states that the archeological record supports the idea that general intelligence supports language. Arguments based on brain size in sapiens and floresiensis. Hmm. There are much stronger arguments for the reverse claim based on their dissociability in sapiens.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread
True! More interesting would be length of childhood (especially given the brain size of grey parrots). (Though I do think that a "language instinct", i.e. an innate interest in studying grammatical structure, which also gives rise to musical interest, is plausible.)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.