Download - Bernard H. Bichakjian [email protected]. THE CANONICAL VIEW Humans have language Sub humans do not
![Page 1: Bernard H. Bichakjian BHB@Post.Harvard.edu. THE CANONICAL VIEW Humans have language Sub humans do not](https://reader038.vdocuments.site/reader038/viewer/2022103005/56649cf85503460f949c8834/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Bernard H. [email protected]
![Page 2: Bernard H. Bichakjian BHB@Post.Harvard.edu. THE CANONICAL VIEW Humans have language Sub humans do not](https://reader038.vdocuments.site/reader038/viewer/2022103005/56649cf85503460f949c8834/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
THE CANONICAL VIEW
Humans havelanguage
Sub humansdo not
![Page 3: Bernard H. Bichakjian BHB@Post.Harvard.edu. THE CANONICAL VIEW Humans have language Sub humans do not](https://reader038.vdocuments.site/reader038/viewer/2022103005/56649cf85503460f949c8834/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
… that humansare born with a Universal Grammarcoded in their genes
![Page 4: Bernard H. Bichakjian BHB@Post.Harvard.edu. THE CANONICAL VIEW Humans have language Sub humans do not](https://reader038.vdocuments.site/reader038/viewer/2022103005/56649cf85503460f949c8834/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
THIS A MATERIAL VIEW
Is it becauseabstract thinkingis alleged to be subjective?
Is it because it better dovetails into syntactic operations expressed in programming language?
Maybe both?
![Page 5: Bernard H. Bichakjian BHB@Post.Harvard.edu. THE CANONICAL VIEW Humans have language Sub humans do not](https://reader038.vdocuments.site/reader038/viewer/2022103005/56649cf85503460f949c8834/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
is in the words of Saussure a faculté de langage,
that has enabled us to forge and use a system of verbal communication.
i.e., an immaterial potential
![Page 6: Bernard H. Bichakjian BHB@Post.Harvard.edu. THE CANONICAL VIEW Humans have language Sub humans do not](https://reader038.vdocuments.site/reader038/viewer/2022103005/56649cf85503460f949c8834/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Humans can also countbut no one would claim
that the known
quinquesimal,decimal, vigesimal,sexagesimal, and the modern binary
systems
Humans have a potential for counting, and that potential is immaterial
are variants of a core counting modelcoded in our genes
![Page 7: Bernard H. Bichakjian BHB@Post.Harvard.edu. THE CANONICAL VIEW Humans have language Sub humans do not](https://reader038.vdocuments.site/reader038/viewer/2022103005/56649cf85503460f949c8834/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Humans can also dance.
They can dance the minuet
the waltz
the tango
But no one would claim that humans carry a core dance step in their genes.
Humans have a potential for rhythmic motion, and that potential is immaterial.
![Page 8: Bernard H. Bichakjian BHB@Post.Harvard.edu. THE CANONICAL VIEW Humans have language Sub humans do not](https://reader038.vdocuments.site/reader038/viewer/2022103005/56649cf85503460f949c8834/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
But we don’t have a rudimentary compassor a model mapcoded in our genes
We find our way and
we make maps
![Page 9: Bernard H. Bichakjian BHB@Post.Harvard.edu. THE CANONICAL VIEW Humans have language Sub humans do not](https://reader038.vdocuments.site/reader038/viewer/2022103005/56649cf85503460f949c8834/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
a dancer
or a surveyor
that not everyone becomes a mathematician
![Page 10: Bernard H. Bichakjian BHB@Post.Harvard.edu. THE CANONICAL VIEW Humans have language Sub humans do not](https://reader038.vdocuments.site/reader038/viewer/2022103005/56649cf85503460f949c8834/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
even among individuals without congenital deficits
not everyone acquires language
that’s the case of feral children
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ljVd6XS-J0s
![Page 11: Bernard H. Bichakjian BHB@Post.Harvard.edu. THE CANONICAL VIEW Humans have language Sub humans do not](https://reader038.vdocuments.site/reader038/viewer/2022103005/56649cf85503460f949c8834/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
suggests two things:
1.Language is not an organ-like entity, and language acquisition is not a case of gene expression.
2. We tap our various potentials to the extent they are needed in our everyday lives.
Language is indispensable for our survival;so, we are pressed into becoming linguistically proficient ASAP.
Counting is important, but not indispensable;so, we attain a measure of proficiency.
Dancing is a flourish and surveying a technique;so, not everyone learns to tango, and map making is left to the
experts.
![Page 12: Bernard H. Bichakjian BHB@Post.Harvard.edu. THE CANONICAL VIEW Humans have language Sub humans do not](https://reader038.vdocuments.site/reader038/viewer/2022103005/56649cf85503460f949c8834/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
If all humans are endowed with the same skeletal grammar, then all languages are gratuitous variants of a unique model.
No linguistic feature, present here and absent there, can be claimed to be more or less advanced than its homolog elsewhere.
All homologous features are equally advanced ,and all linguistic systems are equal.The Italians have a say: “Non è vero, ma è bello.”
Turning the words around, one may ask: “It’s beautiful alright, but is it true?”
The attendant relativism of Universal Grammar is politically convenient.
![Page 13: Bernard H. Bichakjian BHB@Post.Harvard.edu. THE CANONICAL VIEW Humans have language Sub humans do not](https://reader038.vdocuments.site/reader038/viewer/2022103005/56649cf85503460f949c8834/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
But, as far as I know, there is no evidence at all that this is the case” (1984:162).
“The notion that all languages are somehow exactly equal in
complexity and expressiveness is often taught as scientific truth in linguistics courses.
Charles Ferguson (1921–1998)
![Page 14: Bernard H. Bichakjian BHB@Post.Harvard.edu. THE CANONICAL VIEW Humans have language Sub humans do not](https://reader038.vdocuments.site/reader038/viewer/2022103005/56649cf85503460f949c8834/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
There are nono signs of a grammar gene
has been unambiguous
![Page 15: Bernard H. Bichakjian BHB@Post.Harvard.edu. THE CANONICAL VIEW Humans have language Sub humans do not](https://reader038.vdocuments.site/reader038/viewer/2022103005/56649cf85503460f949c8834/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Science may indeed uncover unpleasant truths, but the critical thing is that they are truths.
Any effort, whether wicked or well-meaning, to conceal truth or impede its disclosure is destructive.” (James Watson, 2003:372).
Jim Watson
“… ideology – of any kind – & science are at best inappropriate bedfellows.
![Page 16: Bernard H. Bichakjian BHB@Post.Harvard.edu. THE CANONICAL VIEW Humans have language Sub humans do not](https://reader038.vdocuments.site/reader038/viewer/2022103005/56649cf85503460f949c8834/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Contrary to what has been claimed
• Language is NOT a mental organ• Language acquisition is NOT a matter of
gene expression• Humans are NOT born with a Universal
Grammar coded in their genes
This has been my position for decades
![Page 17: Bernard H. Bichakjian BHB@Post.Harvard.edu. THE CANONICAL VIEW Humans have language Sub humans do not](https://reader038.vdocuments.site/reader038/viewer/2022103005/56649cf85503460f949c8834/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
I have been arguing for decades• that we have a potential for language, not a blue
print,•that languages have evolved, as linguistic communities
have sought to make their systems of thought and
communication• ever-more powerful •and ever-more efficient,•and that they have done so at their own pace and along
their own pathways
I have received more criticism than support,
but concurring views are emerging.
![Page 18: Bernard H. Bichakjian BHB@Post.Harvard.edu. THE CANONICAL VIEW Humans have language Sub humans do not](https://reader038.vdocuments.site/reader038/viewer/2022103005/56649cf85503460f949c8834/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
• “The claims of Universal Grammar … are empirically false, unfalsifiable, or misleading in that they refer to tendencies rather than strict universals.
• Structural differences should instead be accepted for what they are,
• and integrated into a new approach to language and cognition that places diversity centre stage” (Evans and Levinson 2009:429).
Nick Evans
Steve Levinson
In a seminal paper, Nick Evans and Steve Levinson have argued that
![Page 19: Bernard H. Bichakjian BHB@Post.Harvard.edu. THE CANONICAL VIEW Humans have language Sub humans do not](https://reader038.vdocuments.site/reader038/viewer/2022103005/56649cf85503460f949c8834/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
“We show that each of these [four] language families evolves according to its own set of rules, not ... to a universal set of rules.
That is inconsistent with the ... “universality theories” of grammar;
it suggests rather that language is part of• not a specialised module distinct from the rest of
cognition, • but more part of broad human cognitive skills.”
Describing what could be seen as a “follow up” article, Michael Dunn, the lead author, has stated:
![Page 20: Bernard H. Bichakjian BHB@Post.Harvard.edu. THE CANONICAL VIEW Humans have language Sub humans do not](https://reader038.vdocuments.site/reader038/viewer/2022103005/56649cf85503460f949c8834/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
I will argue and, to the extent possible, demonstrate
In the remaining part of my paper,
• that as incipient speakers cobbled their initial linguistic systems, they improvised grammatical implements on the basis of their perception of the outside world,
• but that as languages evolved, the grammatical implements molded on the outside world were gradually replaced with alternatives conceived in the mind exclusively for linguistic purposes.
• that this was an important process whereby languages as systems of thought and communication became
• ever-more powerful • and ever-more efficient.
![Page 21: Bernard H. Bichakjian BHB@Post.Harvard.edu. THE CANONICAL VIEW Humans have language Sub humans do not](https://reader038.vdocuments.site/reader038/viewer/2022103005/56649cf85503460f949c8834/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Visual Cerebral
Perceptual Conceptual
Grammatical features Grammatical featuresmolded on the outside world developed in the mind
for linguistic purposes
![Page 22: Bernard H. Bichakjian BHB@Post.Harvard.edu. THE CANONICAL VIEW Humans have language Sub humans do not](https://reader038.vdocuments.site/reader038/viewer/2022103005/56649cf85503460f949c8834/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Pictogram Alphabet
![Page 23: Bernard H. Bichakjian BHB@Post.Harvard.edu. THE CANONICAL VIEW Humans have language Sub humans do not](https://reader038.vdocuments.site/reader038/viewer/2022103005/56649cf85503460f949c8834/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Pictogram Alphabet
Picture soundRebus
• tailor• tailgate
t…
Picture meaning• tail
Picture meaningExtension
• end
Picture sound Homonymy• tale
Acrophonic principle“d” as in “dog”
![Page 24: Bernard H. Bichakjian BHB@Post.Harvard.edu. THE CANONICAL VIEW Humans have language Sub humans do not](https://reader038.vdocuments.site/reader038/viewer/2022103005/56649cf85503460f949c8834/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Pictogram Alphabet
head of an ox
stylized
stylized & rotated 90º
![Page 25: Bernard H. Bichakjian BHB@Post.Harvard.edu. THE CANONICAL VIEW Humans have language Sub humans do not](https://reader038.vdocuments.site/reader038/viewer/2022103005/56649cf85503460f949c8834/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
foot
yard
inch metric system
Protagoras: "Man is the measure of all things” ...
material and mental!
![Page 26: Bernard H. Bichakjian BHB@Post.Harvard.edu. THE CANONICAL VIEW Humans have language Sub humans do not](https://reader038.vdocuments.site/reader038/viewer/2022103005/56649cf85503460f949c8834/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
human
animal
vegetal
mineral
compact
long
solid
liquid
PracticallyDisappeared
![Page 27: Bernard H. Bichakjian BHB@Post.Harvard.edu. THE CANONICAL VIEW Humans have language Sub humans do not](https://reader038.vdocuments.site/reader038/viewer/2022103005/56649cf85503460f949c8834/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
active
stative
active
stative
stative
AgentErgative case
PatientAbsolutive case
Nouns SyntaxVerbs
PatientAbsolutive case
![Page 28: Bernard H. Bichakjian BHB@Post.Harvard.edu. THE CANONICAL VIEW Humans have language Sub humans do not](https://reader038.vdocuments.site/reader038/viewer/2022103005/56649cf85503460f949c8834/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
active
stative
Masculine Feminine
Neuter
Nouns
Ø
![Page 29: Bernard H. Bichakjian BHB@Post.Harvard.edu. THE CANONICAL VIEW Humans have language Sub humans do not](https://reader038.vdocuments.site/reader038/viewer/2022103005/56649cf85503460f949c8834/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
active
stative
active/passive
deponent
adjective
Verbs
stative
active
![Page 30: Bernard H. Bichakjian BHB@Post.Harvard.edu. THE CANONICAL VIEW Humans have language Sub humans do not](https://reader038.vdocuments.site/reader038/viewer/2022103005/56649cf85503460f949c8834/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Patient of a stative verb
AgentErgative case
Syntax
Subjectnominative case
PatientAbsolutive case
Patient of a active verb
Direct objectaccusative case
![Page 31: Bernard H. Bichakjian BHB@Post.Harvard.edu. THE CANONICAL VIEW Humans have language Sub humans do not](https://reader038.vdocuments.site/reader038/viewer/2022103005/56649cf85503460f949c8834/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
• No active/stative distinction.
• All nouns can occupy all syntactic functions
• No active/stative distinction.
• All verbs can have a subject.
• Transitive verbs can be put in the passive voice.
Nouns SyntaxVerbs Adjectives
Can be • predicative• attributive.
• No agent/patient distinction.
• The action can be expressed from the angle of all participants
![Page 32: Bernard H. Bichakjian BHB@Post.Harvard.edu. THE CANONICAL VIEW Humans have language Sub humans do not](https://reader038.vdocuments.site/reader038/viewer/2022103005/56649cf85503460f949c8834/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Nouns: No subcategorization. All nouns can be subject.(Originally, neuter nouns were stative and, as such, could not be
agents.)
Verbs: No subcategorization. All verbs can take a subject.(Originally, only active verbs could have an agent.)
Adjectives: They can be attributive or predicative.(Originally, they were stative verbs and, as such, only predicative.)
Syntax: All argument alignments are possible:(1) John gave Mary a present.(2) A present was given to Mary by John(3) Mary was given a present by John
(Originally, only [1] was possible.)
![Page 33: Bernard H. Bichakjian BHB@Post.Harvard.edu. THE CANONICAL VIEW Humans have language Sub humans do not](https://reader038.vdocuments.site/reader038/viewer/2022103005/56649cf85503460f949c8834/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
I can express the actions that are• in progress• completed• resulting state
Chainedto the present
I can expressthe actions• I saw• I am seeing• I shall see
Aspect Tense
my mind is free to travel
![Page 34: Bernard H. Bichakjian BHB@Post.Harvard.edu. THE CANONICAL VIEW Humans have language Sub humans do not](https://reader038.vdocuments.site/reader038/viewer/2022103005/56649cf85503460f949c8834/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
rhythmic drum beats
Stem modulation
Function words
• Vowel alternation sing~sang~song edit~ēdit
• Syllable reduplication canit~cecinit
• Conson’t reduplication kasara~kassara broke~broke to pieces
Suffixes Markers of case, person, degree, tense, mood, etc.
Function words
prepositions, pronouns,
degree adverbs, auxiliaries, etc.
![Page 35: Bernard H. Bichakjian BHB@Post.Harvard.edu. THE CANONICAL VIEW Humans have language Sub humans do not](https://reader038.vdocuments.site/reader038/viewer/2022103005/56649cf85503460f949c8834/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
• Stem modulation provides only a limited number of distinctions.
• Suffixes provide more distinctions, • but can trigger morphological irregularities • and therefore language acquisition problems and delays.
• Function words can provide• unlimited distinctions • and no language acquisition problems.
![Page 36: Bernard H. Bichakjian BHB@Post.Harvard.edu. THE CANONICAL VIEW Humans have language Sub humans do not](https://reader038.vdocuments.site/reader038/viewer/2022103005/56649cf85503460f949c8834/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
![Page 37: Bernard H. Bichakjian BHB@Post.Harvard.edu. THE CANONICAL VIEW Humans have language Sub humans do not](https://reader038.vdocuments.site/reader038/viewer/2022103005/56649cf85503460f949c8834/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
That we are a cerebral species, that we have achieved our survival and indeed our dominion over many of the elements by using our brain and finding cerebral solutionsis common knowledge.
What needed to be stressed and demonstrated is that the quest for cerebral alternatives also applies to language.
Expectedly enough, languages started with features molded on the out-side world, but the perceptual prototypes gradually morphed into mentally constructed alternatives, especially conceived for linguistic purposes.
![Page 38: Bernard H. Bichakjian BHB@Post.Harvard.edu. THE CANONICAL VIEW Humans have language Sub humans do not](https://reader038.vdocuments.site/reader038/viewer/2022103005/56649cf85503460f949c8834/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Harry Jerison has argued that language has provided humans with a cognitive dimension that enables us to elaborate knowledge “not only from sensory mappings that we share with other anthropoids as well as most mammals, but by important inputs to the mapping that comes from our language ‘sense’ as it has evolved in Homo sapiens.”
The foregoing has shown that the trend from sensory mapping to cognitive processing has continued, whereby languages have become ever-more powerful instruments for the organization and transfer of knowledge.