Is language merely an accidental byproduct of more complex thought patterns?
>>7969347
Chomsky says yes
>>7969350
Chomsky also thinks there is a universal grammar
>>7969356
There is
>>7969345
language is a tool and as such can be used to both covey and enhance its wielder thoughts.
because each word has a specific connotation, some could convey complex thoughts easily.
also the usage of language gives us the ability to look back at our own thoughts more constructively.
also, once you start defining languages you come across mathematics and programming language, which are both not accidental and themselves could be a lot more complex than what they are trying to describe.
>>7969361
A baby born to white english speakers in America could be sent to Japan and learn Japanese without any trouble, meaning it is universally inherent to the structure of the mind
All languages follow the same 6 patterns
>>7969362
you've got it the other way round
>>7969364
That doesn't mean that there is a hard-wired universal grammar in us, merely that our language acquisition is flexible enough to deal with any human language.
>>7969366
>That doesn't mean that there is a hard-wired universal grammar in us, merely that our language acquisition
>merely that our language acquisition
>language acquisition
which is universal and works everywhere and must be hardwired into our brains because where else could it be? the soul?
>>7969364
a baby born in uganda could be sent to the uk and learn to use the computer
meaning it is universally inherent to the structure of the mind
All computer uses follow the same 6 patterns
>>7969372
Chomskys linguistics is all about biology not mere a philosophical linguistics
>>7969377
So?
>>7969372
I think it all boild down to complex pattern identification and learning.
out brains sure have something in them that alllows us to learn languages that other animals could never fathom.
math, programming, verbal all those languages could be expressed in a variety of ways, but all boil down to "if-then".
"if you want to address to the house than say D-I-S and then HA-O-S"
our brains are just really really good at it.
>>7969377
"Is language merely an accidental byproduct of more complex thought patterns?" is not a biological question, but a philosophical one.
a biological (or neurological) question would be " how is language expressed in our minds"
>>7969384
Yes, but a universal grammar implies that there are meta-patterns before any learning specifically for the syntax language, not its semantics.
So either we can map these patterns directly on neurons, which we can't yet for anything, except very very rough mapping by assigning regions(not patterns in the neurons) to certain tasks, or our brain can adopt to whatever language we want it to learn and similarities between different languages are driven by the need to express the same thing, i.e. convergent evolution since humans started to speak.
We can't verify the first, given how flexible our brain is with reassigning regions and learning almost anything we can throw at it, the second is also more likely.
>>7969386
The biological development that allowed more complex thought also had the effect of allowing language to be created
>>7969391
there are meta patterns
>>7969395
Not for syntax
>>7969396
6 of them
>>7969398
Only on conceptual level, not in the brain
>>7969392
so you want to ask an evolutionaty question
then you should ask "what are the minimum requirments for the basis of language (of any kind) to develop and how it's invention affected the brain development"
>>7969391
if you don't know how language is expressed in the brain you can't make any claim but only guesses.
by your answer I presume your expertise in neurology is not vast.
