Dan, List: DE: By the way, predicates in natural languages can vary for cultural reasons. For example, "to give" in most languages is triadic, but it is dyadic in Amele of New Guinea (as I discuss in Language: The Cultural Tool).
That is interesting, but I assume we can still say that the *relation *of giving is *irreducibly triadic*, regardless of how it is expressed in any *particular *language. Do you disagree? DE: On another note, neurolinguistics research by Evelina Fedorenko and her colleagues at MIT's Brain and Cognitive Sciences Department shows that language networks in the brain are built primarily around words/symbols, with syntax parasitic on words, which I independently predict in my book and recent work on the origin of language. Also Steve Piantadosi (Berkeley Psychology) has shown that all the memory needed for much of language is about 1.5 megabytes, a small amount, with the amount of memory required for syntax negligible, more evidence that symbols drive syntax. Could you please elaborate on what you mean by "syntax parasitic on words"? I am neither a linguist nor a cognitive scientist--and I did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night--but that interpretation of the evidence seems backwards. Consider this excerpt from the article about Piantadosi's research that you linked <https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190327134547.htm> in a subsequent post. For example, when presented with the word "turkey," a young learner typically gathers bits of information by asking, "Is a turkey a bird? Yes, or no? Does a turkey fly? Yes, or no?" and so on, until grasping the full meaning of the word "turkey." The young learner in this example must *already *have mastered basic syntax in order to pose his/her questions in the first place, and then understand the responses--which help make the word "turkey" *more determinate* in his/her own mind, like adding Spots to a branching Line of Identity. This is presumably why symbols require far more memory than syntax--they have to be situated in relation to *all other* symbols, while the *same *syntax applies to a vast range of *different *circumstances, as the isomorphic Existential Graphs for the triadic relations of *giving *and *determining * reflect. Moreover, what do you make of the following comments by Peirce regarding the priority of syntax? CSP: Take the Proposition "Cain killed Abel." This is identically the same Proposition as "Abel was killed by Cain": It is only the grammatical dress that is different. Other things being equal, everybody will prefer the former. Why? Because it is simpler; but why is it simpler? Because in putting the cause before the effect, it in that respect diagrammatizes the truth. What are the Subjects of this Proposition. Cain, first: that is not only a Subject of the Proposition, but is the principal Subject of the Assertion which a historian would naturally make. But in the Proposition Cain and Abel are, as Subjects, on one footing precisely (or almost precisely, for Cain is preponderant in causality). But besides these, "killed" = committed murder upon, is a third Subject, since no study of the words alone, without extraneous experience, would enable the Ad[d]ressee to understand it. What, then, is left to serve as Predicate? Nothing but the flow of causation. It is true that we are more acquainted even with that in Experience. When we see a babe in its cradle bending its arms this way and that, while a smile of exultation plays upon its features, it is making acquaintance with the flow of causation. So acquaintance with the flow of causation so early as to make it familiar before speech is so far acquired that an assertion can be syntactically framed, and it is embodied in the syntax of every tongue. However, it is not because of this physiological fact, that it becomes proper to draw the line between Subjects and Predicate here; neither is it because of the psychical fact that human minds naturally think in a way broadly (i.e. a little) similar to the forms of syntax; nor is it even because of the metaphysical truth, that the order of syntax is the law of Time and of Becoming. This is proved by the facts, first, that it is necessary that the Reasonings by which we discover and defend the orders of Causation, of human thought, of time, and of becoming, themselves presuppose the recognition of the corresponding order in syntax; and secondly, by this, that it has not been the order [of] time, or Causation, or the structure of the human mind, nor human anatomy and physiology that have, any or all of them, determined that that ought to be the order of syntax that in fact ought to be so, but precisely the contrary, it is the fact that the order of Syntax ought to be as in fact it ought to be that has determined, first, Real Being and Time to take the same form, and then, that it should become natural to the mind and should be the pattern of physical action. (R 664:10-13; 1910 Nov 26-27) It seems to me--and Peirce, apparently--that another reason why syntax requires little memory is simply because it is relatively *natural*, generally reflecting "the flow of causation" that we discover long before we achieve competence in *any *language. By contrast, symbols are ultimately *arbitrary*, requiring the acquisition of myriad *habits *for even rudimentary employment in thought and communication. In any case, with Peirce I see the primary distinction here as being between subjects that denote Objects (as Semes) and continuous predicates that signify Interpretants (within Propositions). There is no limit to the potential number of different words or other symbols that we could devise and memorize to serve as the former, but only a handful of syntactical configurations are sufficient to express the latter, since they represent *indecomposable logical relations*. We can stipulate the proper linear sequence of words for this purpose, often supplemented by additional words; or we can adopt even more iconic Signs, such as Spots with certain arrangements of Pegs attached to other Spots by means of Lines, all scribed on a two-dimensional Sheet. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 1:20 PM Dan Everett <[email protected]> wrote: > The most common word order among the world's 7000+ languages is Sub Obj > Verb. But I have worked on languages in the Amazon that are SOV, VSO, VOS, > OSV, SVO, and OVS. I have written full grammars of two of them. A > propositions can serve as predicates of higher propositions in some > languages. Syntactic variation is intense. > > On another note, neurolinguistics research by Evelina Fedorenko and her > colleagues at MIT's Brain and Cognitivie Sciences Department shows that > language networks in the brain are built primarily around words/symbols, > with syntax parasitic on words, which I independently predict in my book > and recent work on the origin of language. Also Steve Piantadosi (Berkeley > Psychology) has shown that all the memory needed for much of language is > about 1.5 megabytes, a small amount, with the amount of memory required for > syntax neglible, more evidence that symbols drive syntax. > > Dan > > On Apr 19, 2019, at 2:14 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes, and the location of the predicate in the sentence is also > interesting. For example, in classical ancient Chinese, the verb was at the > end [as it is in Latin]. I thought this implied that whatever was going on > in the full sentence, i.e, subject and object, involved both as co-agents > in the action. What was interesting is how this ancient Chinese format > eventually gave way to the modern mode where the verb is between the > subject and object. > > Edwina > > On Fri 19/04/19 1:42 PM , Dan Everett [email protected] sent: > > By the way, predicates in natural languages can vary for cultural reasons. > For example, "to give" in most languages is triadic, but it is dyadic in > Amele of New Guinea (as I discuss in Language: The Cultural Tool). > > Dan > >
----------------------------- 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 .
