wrote: > The entire article looks dubious and would require a lifetime to discuss.
CB: A lifetime ? What is dubious ? > > I think the overall thrust of the accounts I posted excerpts from is > formed thus: that syntactisized upper body ^^^^^ CB: Why upper body ? Body language includes the lower body , too, the whole body. ^^^^^ gesturing and sophisticated > vocalization abilities ^^^^^^^ CB: A lightbulb just went on for me with your emphasis on gesturing. You are just saying that a "sign language" came before a vocalized medium for language, no ? ^^^^ converged and were somehow (not yet explained) > able to integrate cognitive capacities. So linguistic ability appears > to be its own modality, but uses other pre-existing modalities (so > that doesn't mean we are going to find a clearcut language mode carved > out in our brains). More and more I have to reject the idea that we > need to lump human language in with the rest of psychology or with the > rest of cognitive science. OTOH, I have to say I think Chomskyist > formalism is as complete dead end as abstract social structuralism. > > CJ > > _______________________________________________ > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis > _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
