Franklin - I'm not sure that you are saying anything that much different from your previous
"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." I note that you refer not simply to the words available to the society but to the logical rules-of-construction' and 'the things that CAN be said'.....and your conclusion that not every human language can 'articulate scientific terminology' seems to me the same conclusion in this post. I note again, that you refer to the 'rules of construction' and suggest that in certain languages, these rules prevent scientific expression. How? My view is that ALL peoples have the SAME cognitive abilities, the same logical capabilities - and they can adapt their languages to express ANY thought. That includes new terms (we didn't refer to telephones 1,000 years ago). Therefore - a language, such as, eg, that of the Dobe !Kung, can readily either adapt and use the same word (telephone) or come up with their own term. BUT - cognitively and logically, since we all are the same species - then, we can all think the same way. Language - either in its grammar or its words - does not confine or define us. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Franklin Ransom To: Peirce-L Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2015 2:48 AM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations Edwina, list, I never meant to imply that language determines thought in toto. So far as all thought is in signs, and a language represents a system of signs, and signs determine other signs, then it must be admitted that language determines signs and, since all thought is in signs, this means that language determines (some) thoughts. That doesn't mean that every thought anyone ever has is determined by a given language. It does mean that to a significant extent, our thoughts are determined by the language in which we express many of our thoughts, because those thoughts are to a great extent interpretants of that language. I find it absurd that my position has been represented as 'sociolinguistic relativism or determinism'. If you read what I said in attempting to respond to Sunchul's query regarding language, I discussed the different ways in which one could mean language, which included the consideration of logic as the language of thought, as well as considering that language, taken in a very broad sense, could include all the kinds of signs there are. Moreover, I never agreed that human language is an appropriate way to think of reasoning; in fact, I emphatically denied it, and was giving good reason for why logic, which does engage in the analysis of thought, could never be reduced to a study of human language. -- Franklin ------------------------------------------- On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: 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 . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------- 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 .
