Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id AAA03047 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 1 Jun 2000 00:06:49 +0100 Message-Id: <4.3.1.0.20000531174629.00ed94f0@pop3.htcomp.net> X-Sender: mmills@pop3.htcomp.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1 Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 19:04:39 -0400 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: "Mark M. Mills" <mmills@htcomp.net> Subject: grammatical expressions by chimps In-Reply-To: <B6E47FBD3879D31192AD009027AC929C36890A@NWTH-EXCHANGE> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Bruce,
At 12:05 PM 5/31/00 -0500, you wrote:
> [BJ] Who says there is no grammatical construction in a chimps
>language?
Most people start with that opinion.
First, we ought to be clear about 'language' and 'grammar.' Many would say
that language is the 'gloss' on grammar, the culturally dependent
symbols. Grammar is the foundation upon which the 'language' is built.
Many would argue there is no 'chimp' language because there is no 'grammar'
to their vocalization. Grammar is the 'unique' human ability.
The big debate is over the source of grammar. Is grammar an instinct? Is
grammar purely logical with many unique expressions? Is the human brain
like a computer, ready to solve any logical problem (using disembodied
logic)? Is the brain uniquely organic, unlike a computer, relying on
instinct and emotion (embodied logic)?
Debating the existence of an inborn human grammar seems very
popular. Debating the existence of an inborn chimp grammar has been
proposed, but only makes sense in terms of supporting/discrediting various
arguments regarding the human grammatical condition.
> Grammatical syntax is culture and language dependent. English
>differs from German, Russian, Arabic, etc. based on the culture of the
>language.
This is the focus of the debate. Languages are culturally dependend. Is
grammar? Chomsky and Pinker argue that grammar is UNIVERSAL, not
cultural. They have powerful datasets supporting their position.
> Until someone speaks fluent "native" chimpanzee we will not be
>able to determine the structure of the language.
This would probably require leaving a human infant with a wild chimp foster
mother. Do you want to speculate on the ethics of such an experiment?
> When you learn a new language do you always get the syntax correct?
Chomsky argues that children make surprisingly few errors, far fewer than
pure memorization of logical structure would require.. thus the language
instinct.
>Probably not because you are building your interpretation of the language on
>your own languages syntax .... same with chimps.
Ah, now you are arguing for the grammar instinct ("your own language"
contrasted against culture's input). I agree with you.
I think the grammar instinct is well displayed in various chimp language
acquisition studies, but the work is attacked for two reasons:
1) The issue of a human grammar instinct is far from settled, chimps
studies add confusion.
2) Those advocating a human grammar instinct see no evolutionary model for
its emergence. Instead, they seem to rely on divine intervention or the
brain size passing some threshold.
This is were memetics comes in. The Lynch definition for meme (L-meme = an
instantiated pattern on a neural substrate) seems particularly good when
these arguments are considered.
1. It provides a framework for testing ideas regarding neural
evolution. Few question the notion that the brain stores data, nor the
idea that it comes with a predisposition dataset (instinct). Additionally,
a 'beginners pattern' of L-memes can be established during embryonic
developments, providing the building blocks for culturally established
L-meme patterns. If the 'grammar instinct' exists, it must be an expression
of these L-memes. It makes no sense to argue that we check with our DNA
when learning to talk.
2. It seems easy to argue that all primates express these L-memes.
Interaction of L-memes will require some processing rules (grammar) at
neural levels. These cellular neural processing rules will produce
organism level processing rules which we can observe in cultural
interactions. Even if there isn't a grammar instinct (no genetically
established L-meme rules), L-memes would be required to facilitate pure logic.
Do you find memetics suggests anything about human neural evolution?
Mark
===============================================================
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 Jun 01 2000 - 00:07:27 BST