Languagologists Unite! (Cartel expeditionary posting)
|
|
Qie Niangao
Coin-operated
Join date: 24 May 2006
Posts: 7,138
|
10-11-2007 16:16
(This will surely be eaten by the dreaded Black Thong Mistress Cabal, but just as a test: it's post time!)
|
|
Malachi Petunia
Gentle Miscreant
Join date: 21 Sep 2003
Posts: 3,414
|
10-11-2007 16:38
Languagologist? Is that like a linguist or more like a language geologist? I don't know much about language geology, but I am reading Pinker's "The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature" because I'm odd that way. I'm only a few chapters in but he's already begun putting flesh on Chomsky's universal grammar skeleton. I haven't many insights yet, but feel his preface to "Words and Rules: The Ingredients of Language" has at least mild humor value: From: Steven Pinker This book tries to illuminate the nature of language and mind by choosing a single phenomenon and examining it from every angle imaginable. That phenomenon is regular and irregular verbs, the bane of every language student.
At first glance that approach might seem to lie in the great academic tradition of knowing more and more about less and less until you know everything about nothing. The kick - for me, at least - is that his 12 year study of irregular verbs is surprisingly enlightening. |
|
Ava Glasgow
Hippie surfer chick
Join date: 27 Jan 2007
Posts: 2,172
|
10-11-2007 16:40
From: Malachi Petunia I'm only a few chapters in but he's already begun putting flesh on Chomsky's universal grammar skeleton. Two posts into our coup, and already somebody's invoked Chomsky!  |
|
Malachi Petunia
Gentle Miscreant
Join date: 21 Sep 2003
Posts: 3,414
|
10-11-2007 16:57
Sorry, I meant to say something about black thong mistress panties, but I got confused.  |
|
Cee Edman
The Dude Abides
Join date: 2 Oct 2007
Posts: 283
|
10-11-2007 17:24
From: Malachi Petunia Sorry, I meant to say something about black thong mistress panties, but I got confused. I am often confused by black thongs, but more often by mistresses. I feel right at home here. Chomsky does not confuse me. I don't read him. Does he have a mistress? |
|
Cee Edman
The Dude Abides
Join date: 2 Oct 2007
Posts: 283
|
10-11-2007 17:30
From: Qie Niangao (This will surely be eaten by the dreaded Black Thong Mistress Cabal, but just as a test: it's post time!) Qie won the race by twelve minutes, and what is the first word of the take-over? Languagologists! I gather this has something to do with tongues. And go-go dancers? Or should I not go (-go) there? |
|
Metawraith Mistral
Ghost in the Machine
Join date: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 166
|
10-11-2007 17:32
Sounds like somebody is looking for a cunning linguist.
(obvious post really)
|
|
Ava Glasgow
Hippie surfer chick
Join date: 27 Jan 2007
Posts: 2,172
|
10-11-2007 18:26
Metawraith FTW!  And yes. I am. |
|
Qie Niangao
Coin-operated
Join date: 24 May 2006
Posts: 7,138
|
10-11-2007 19:47
Just FYI, the "languagologist" thing came from Trout's post #107 on the "new home" thread. FWIW, as time has passed and I've forgotten all the Chomsky I allegedly learnt in Psycholinguistics, I've found myself wondering what all the fuss was about, really. The dividing line seems blurry now between deep grammar and the essence of thought. It's perhaps problematic that the only way we have to really express thought is with language, but the rules (such as they are) of universal grammar seem not to imply *language* at all. That is, are we sure that non-linguistic creatures do not employ the same "grammar" internally, without expression of any kind? The old Behaviorists would be appalled at the idea of ascribing any internal unexpressed phenomena. But given that the behavior of non-linguistic organisms appears cognitive, I'm no longer sure it's more parsimonious to dream up a wholly different kind of cognition than for linguistic organisms. Or a wholly different deep structure for those "thoughts." So I'm no longer convinced that we're "wired for language" at all, but only that language of a certain structure is an inevitable outcome of sufficiently advanced cognition which may, of necessity, manipulate internal symbols with the same deep structure. But then, I've forgotten all my Chomsky, so... nevermind. |
|
Cee Edman
The Dude Abides
Join date: 2 Oct 2007
Posts: 283
|
10-11-2007 21:11
From: Qie Niangao Just FYI, the "languagologist" thing came from Trout's post #107 on the "new home" thread. FWIW, as time has passed and I've forgotten all the Chomsky I allegedly learnt in Psycholinguistics, I've found myself wondering what all the fuss was about, really. The dividing line seems blurry now between deep grammar and the essence of thought. It's perhaps problematic that the only way we have to really express thought is with language, but the rules (such as they are) of universal grammar seem not to imply *language* at all. That is, are we sure that non-linguistic creatures do not employ the same "grammar" internally, without expression of any kind? The old Behaviorists would be appalled at the idea of ascribing any internal unexpressed phenomena. But given that the behavior of non-linguistic organisms appears cognitive, I'm no longer sure it's more parsimonious to dream up a wholly different kind of cognition than for linguistic organisms. Or a wholly different deep structure for those "thoughts." So I'm no longer convinced that we're "wired for language" at all, but only that language of a certain structure is an inevitable outcome of sufficiently advanced cognition which may, of necessity, manipulate internal symbols with the same deep structure. But then, I've forgotten all my Chomsky, so... nevermind. My study of psycholinguistics stopped with S. I. Hiakawa, and I've had plenty of time to forget it all. But one thing I know for absolute certain is that language is not the only way we have to express thought. /me raises one eyebrow and looks intent. Hah! You expected I was thinking about sex! |
|
Qie Niangao
Coin-operated
Join date: 24 May 2006
Posts: 7,138
|
10-11-2007 22:46
From: Cee Edman /me raises one eyebrow and looks intent.
Hah! You expected I was thinking about sex! Yes, but I expected that long before you moved your eyebrow.  [Edit: In retrospect, you were probably suggesting that you'd expressed something other than sex, despite invoking the standard Vulcan mating call. Sorry for the confusion. ] |
|
Cee Edman
The Dude Abides
Join date: 2 Oct 2007
Posts: 283
|
10-15-2007 22:41
From: Qie Niangao Yes, but I expected that long before you moved your eyebrow. [Edit: In retrospect, you were probably suggesting that you'd expressed something other than sex, despite invoking the standard Vulcan mating call. Sorry for the confusion. ] It was the OTHER eyebrow! Sorry to be so long in replying, but a very attractive alt misunderheard my eyebrow just as you did, but in her case, I did not correct her error and a very enjoyable weekend was had by all. I THINK it was the other eyebrow. [???] /me closes both eyes and smiles contentedly. |
|
Alyx Sands
Mental Mentor Linguist
Join date: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 2,432
|
10-16-2007 11:38
From: Qie Niangao Just FYI, the "languagologist" thing came from Trout's post #107 on the "new home" thread. FWIW, as time has passed and I've forgotten all the Chomsky I allegedly learnt in Psycholinguistics, I've found myself wondering what all the fuss was about, really. The dividing line seems blurry now between deep grammar and the essence of thought. It's perhaps problematic that the only way we have to really express thought is with language, but the rules (such as they are) of universal grammar seem not to imply *language* at all. That is, are we sure that non-linguistic creatures do not employ the same "grammar" internally, without expression of any kind? The old Behaviorists would be appalled at the idea of ascribing any internal unexpressed phenomena. But given that the behavior of non-linguistic organisms appears cognitive, I'm no longer sure it's more parsimonious to dream up a wholly different kind of cognition than for linguistic organisms. Or a wholly different deep structure for those "thoughts." So I'm no longer convinced that we're "wired for language" at all, but only that language of a certain structure is an inevitable outcome of sufficiently advanced cognition which may, of necessity, manipulate internal symbols with the same deep structure. But then, I've forgotten all my Chomsky, so... nevermind. Ye Gawds...someone who's read Chomsky.....I did, too, but to me it was always more and more exceptions to what were supposed to be simple rules. Nowadays, I only read his sociocultural stuff.
_____________________
~~I'm a linguist. RL sucks, but right now it's decided to be a little less nasty to me - you can still be nice to me if you want! ~~
->Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis.<-
|
|
Cee Edman
The Dude Abides
Join date: 2 Oct 2007
Posts: 283
|
10-16-2007 13:16
From: Alyx Sands Ye Gawds...someone who's read Chomsky.....I did, too, but to me it was always more and more exceptions to what were supposed to be simple rules. Nowadays, I only read his sociocultural stuff. Which constitutes more exceptions to what were supposed to be simple rules - ten of them. On tablets. Easily stated, hard to obey. |