Comments on: Academic spats revisited: one, two, many http://blog.prospectblogs.com/2007/09/14/academic-spats-revisited-one-two-many/ Fri, 21 Nov 2008 03:51:10 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Daniel Taghioff http://blog.prospectblogs.com/2007/09/14/academic-spats-revisited-one-two-many/#comment-2256 Daniel Taghioff Sat, 15 Sep 2007 02:19:44 +0000 http://blog.prospectblogs.com/2007/09/14/academic-spats-revisited-one-two-many/#comment-2256 But his argument does rather undermine universal grammar arguments. If thought is based in algorithms independent of language this suggests a huge plasticity of mind. Why then would language be limited to a subset of the possible variations it can take on within the limitations of utterance lengths (social limitation) and perceivable tonal variations (physical imitation in sound production and reception) and pragmatically workable syntax / ordering variations? The number of possible utterances within these limits is huge, but not infinite, so this is an already limited resource. Universal Grammar implies that the mind limits language to variations that are a more limited subset than those produced merely by practical limits. How is it adaptive for the extremely plastic mind to add further arbitrary limitations to language's possible range of variations? Surely Pinker's arguments about Creolisation show that the mind is able to produce system out of almost any raw material, as neural networks tend to do. So why would the mind hamstring itself in this flexible system creating function by arbitrarily excluding certain variations? There is a blind-spot in the eye where nerves go through to the brain, but can the Universal Grammarists produce concrete reasons why there must be such a blind spot in how minds produce languages? But his argument does rather undermine universal grammar arguments. If thought is based in algorithms independent of language this suggests a huge plasticity of mind.

Why then would language be limited to a subset of the possible variations it can take on within the limitations of utterance lengths (social limitation) and perceivable tonal variations (physical imitation in sound production and reception) and pragmatically workable syntax / ordering variations? The number of possible utterances within these limits is huge, but not infinite, so this is an already limited resource.

Universal Grammar implies that the mind limits language to variations that are a more limited subset than those produced merely by practical limits. How is it adaptive for the extremely plastic mind to add further arbitrary limitations to language’s possible range of variations?

Surely Pinker’s arguments about Creolisation show that the mind is able to produce system out of almost any raw material, as neural networks tend to do. So why would the mind hamstring itself in this flexible system creating function by arbitrarily excluding certain variations?

There is a blind-spot in the eye where nerves go through to the brain, but can the Universal Grammarists produce concrete reasons why there must be such a blind spot in how minds produce languages?

]]>