Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA05850 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 9 May 2002 19:12:10 +0100 Message-ID: <003101c1f785$b115ee00$a5afeb3e@default> From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be> To: <kennethvanoost@myrealbox.com> Subject: Fw: teleology and language Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 20:14:55 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
----- Original Message -----
From: Kenneth Van Oost <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be>
To: <kennethvanoost@myrealbox.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2002 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: teleology and language
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Trupeljak Ozren <ozren_trupeljak@yahoo.com>
> > This is one where I actually agree with Chomsky. My intepretation o
> > the meaning of his words is that through time, we have two levels of
> > change with language - one is strictly genetical, the capability to
> > have a language of certain complexity. The reason why today we don't
> > have "inferior" languages as far as gramatical complexity is measured,
> > is because we are all so damn geneticaly similar. The other level of
> > language adaptation (change, evolution, however you want to label it),
> > is culturaly driven - and is rather obvious across the board.
>
> Hi there,
>
> Cruising thru' this thread I couldn 't stop wondering that something, IMO
> was missing here.
> You all talk a lot about language change, and I agree that languages, what
> their content/ meaning of words , etc is concerned they ' change ',
evolve
> or whatever, indeed you want to call it.
>
> But with the bit that language adaptation is culturaly driven I have
> problems.
> In a sense, then the not English speaking part of Europe would have
> * flaws * in its cultural complexity, because we are oh so keen to adapt
> the English/ American way of saying things.
> In a way, the European culture, wharever that might be, then has in its
> complexity ( memetical/ genetical !?) elements which provides us with
> an easier adaptation of the English/ American language !?
>
> From my point of view it is NOT that damn obvious across the board
> that some, talking here with the words of the Hot Chilli Peppers,
> CALIFORNIFICATION mess up my life !
> I don 't see any flaw within my culture that allows it to be washed up
> by and with the English/ American way of saying the darnest things !
>
> IMO, the use of the English language, in whatever way possible, is by
> conformity and based upon a general agreement.
> The cultural driven bit implies a conjecture that any not English culture
> is * inferior * !
> We have, in a sense to adapt the English language to say things to be
heard
> across the globe, but we don 't want what is memetical attached to it !
> And in a sense, English/ American style and whatever is * trying " through
> the media among others just to do that.
>
> That says a lot about our / Euopean mental/ intellectual capacity to with-
> stand such an invasion, something that I can agree on; it says a lot more
> about the memetical hooks and elements to which we are drawn, but to
> conclude that such a proces is based upon a cultural driven aspect is
> using cultural determination and that is IMO * bad * !
>
> Regards,
>
> Kenneth
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 09 2002 - 19:44:56 BST