Franklin Ransom is using a discredited analysis of language, referred to as
sociolinguistic relativism or determinism, where language defines the knowledge
base; i.e., language determines thought. Followers of this linear causality are
such as Whorf-Sapir, and Basil Bernstein. It doesn't stand up to empirical
analysis. But it enjoyed its own limelight within the works of various people
who saw language or culture as determinant of thought, and even, there were
some who suggested that some languages should be eradicated (eg native) because
the language was defined as 'primitive' and prevented the users from thinking
'in a modern or scientific way'.
Instead, the human brain creates language and thus, can express anything by
coming up with new terms and expressions.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Clark Goble
To: Peirce-L
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 11:48 AM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations
On Dec 14, 2015, at 3:08 AM, Matt Faunce <[email protected]> wrote:
On 12/13/15 6:24 PM, Franklin Ransom wrote:
Human languages differ with respect to the rules of construction and the
things that can be said, and they also develop and evolve over time; the
development of a language to the point where it can articulate scientific
terminology is not a development shared by every human language.
Can you give your source for this? I remember reading the opposite from two
different linguists. Michael Shapiro is one. (I'd have to search for the exact
statements, but the keyword I'd use is 'passkey'.) Edward Vajda writes
" Human language is unlimited in its expressive capacity."
"Today, it is quite obvious that people living with Stone Age technology
speak languages as complex and versatile as those spoken in the most highly
industrialized society. There are no primitive languages. Virtually no
linguist today would disagree with this statement."
I don’t know about that quote in particular. However a decade or so back
Michael Tomasello had a fascinating book on the evolution of language in The
Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. While he doesn’t speak of it in Peircean
terms he creates a model where it appears a certain kind of thirdness in terms
of interpretation of signs develops. Once that evolves then he sees language’s
capabilities as being largely there and develops fast. It’s been a while since
I read it but I think he keeps the traditional dating of the evolution of
language to around 80,000 - 100,000 years. The evolution after that is really
developing the language and culture once you have the capability.
I know he has a newer text based upon some lectures he gave called The
Origins of Human Communication although I’ve not read that one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] .
To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with
the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
