Home   |   Browse       NEW: (hypothetically starring) VIC REEVES as LUKE SKYWALKER .. in "Waiting for Godot, the hollywood version".

Language, thought, communication.   Share:  
Thrust of argument: "A few things have remained pretty constant. One is that at the core of language there must be some generative procedure: recursive, compositional procedure," Noam Chomsky tells us about the scientific endeavour over the last sixty years aiming to understand the nature of human language

"The second is that the field ought to be framed within a biological context. So we're interested in what's come to be called i-Language, internal individual language, viewed intentionally, we care about the actual system of rules, not just some class of objects you might enumerate. .. In the background is a concern to try to show how this biological system could have originated. What's misleadingly called 'evolution of language'. Of course it's misleading because languages don't evolve, but the language capacity, U.G. (universal grammar), does evolve, or must have evolved .. you can derive some surprising conclusions: one of them is that the output of the generative system yields the proper forms for semantic interpretation in quite complex structures .. so that means that what's generated is essentially a language of thought, maybe, I suspect, the only language of thought. The second conclusion is that externalisation .. is just an ancillary process, it's not part of the core of language. .. (these externalisations are) reflexes of the sensory motor system and the nature of the externalisation depends on which sensory motor system you're using .. the sensory motor system is not specifically adapted to language, it was apparently around hundreds of thousands of years before language suddenly emerged and there are many ways to map one to the other and it's a hard process and in fact what we find is that the complexity of language which you have to learn when you learn a language is almost entirely externalisation .."

"A third conclusion is that most of the doctrines about the nature of language and related fields .. most of them are just flat wrong. There's a doctrine which is held virtually at the level of dogma. The way it's put is the function of language is communication. It's a kind of a curious notion because biological systems don't have functions. .. the dogma is that language, uniquely among biological systems, has a function and the function is communication, but if these first two conclusions are correct that has to be false because communication is based on externalisation and if externalisation is an ancillary property of language than communication is even more so."
Direction of resistance / implied resistance: At an individual level these matters can give you much pause for thought.

 

I WOULD TRADE NOW ON:
bae (at half strength)
AT APPROX 565.00 capita (at half strength)
AT APPROX 486.20 centrica AT APPROX 145.00 directline AT APPROX 358.70 g4s AT APPROX 252.90 gkn AT APPROX 298.40 glencore AT APPROX 343.00 m&s AT APPROX 319.30 rollsroyce (at half strength)
AT APPROX 839.50 rsa (at half strength)
AT APPROX 601.00 standardlife AT APPROX 417.90

THIS IS NOT TRADING ADVICE. CLICK HERE FOR MORE DETAILS.

 

Enter your DOMAIN NAME to
collect this point:

 

Removal of resistance: Also at a collective level it is pretty significant, in terms of many of society's structures, the media, education, much of commerce, and plenty more. Unification: I'll try and provide references to the specific Chomsky material asap.
Rebut this point   Support this point   Edit this point

(TVhobo's estimated size of readership since 2013, mainly in the UK and USA, with Germany in third place:
over 200,000 readers across approximately 200 cities/towns

 

Copy/paste point into your work:

Type: Open statement

1 versions:

1. Server time: 17:19:40 on 1/12/2017

Related points:

References:

 

 

previous point on the grid   |   next point on the grid

 

Click here to read about Shams Pirani, the editor and chief author on this grid - note, if you can actually prove anything written above wrong, I would gladly, if the proof is sufficient, correct what I've written and what I think - if I could, however, prove your attempted proof wrong, then I would accordingly say so and maintain whatever point of view is completely based on fact and proof.