The Biology of Language (Repeat)

What properties are common to all human languages? What can we learn about the biology of our language from people with brain defects such as Williams syndrome where people whose brain is so damaged that they have low IQs yet they are fluent in language? What does sign language tell us about the nature of our language faculty? Is our view of the world influenced by our language? What are the biological and cultural implications of the imminent loss of the countless languages that are no longer being taught to children?

• If you attended the original Meetup on this topic led by CJ Fearnley on July 12, please do not RSVP to this repeat. Sandy will lead this time, but the description and references below were provided by CJ.

Is language a motor skill (controlling breath, lips, and tongue or hands in the case of sign language)? What cognitive role is there in language? How do we learn language? What are the language centers of the brain?

What do we know about the genetics of language? How did language evolve? Can apes and chimpanzees learn sign language?

This topic will be based on two optional video lectures by Robert Sapolsky about the biology of language.

Nearly 2 hour video by Robert Sapolsky on Language. Read Jon Dakins' notes summarizing the lecture. (http://www.robertsapolskyrocks.com/language.html) Read CJ Fearnley's detailed notes summarizing and commenting on the lecture. (https://www.facebook.com/cj.fearnley/posts/10206547472061163)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIOQgY1tqrU

Only the first 23 minutes of the following video are on the biology of Language (we will not discuss the second part of the video on Schizophrenia at this meetup). Read Jon Dakin's notes summarizing the lecture (http://www.robertsapolskyrocks.com/schizophrenia.html). Read CJ Fearnley's detailed notes summarizing and commenting on the first 23 minutes of the lecture (https://www.facebook.com/cj.fearnley/posts/10206555305977006).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEnklxGAmak

How are thought and language related?

The numerical deficiency of two Amazonian tribes and their languages and the East-West arrangement of story-telling by Aboriginal Australians suggest that language shapes our thinking (that is, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis).

But I imagine that for words to have been invented in the first place there must be an a priori thinking pattern which is captured in the language.

Is language a culture's way of capturing and remembering important-to-them thinking patterns?

Since language is so complex and expressive I wonder if it allows the expansion of thought into domains that could not be accessed without language?

Is language simply a tool for thought?

Did thought invent language to communicate its content?

Doesn't the act of listening itself suggest that language evokes thought?

This comment was by Susan and a reply by CJ were posted after the original Meetup. Her linked material is relevant and interesting:

Posted by Susan (https://www.meetup.com/thinkingsociety/members/956649/) July 16:

A very stimulating discussion! Thank you!
Here are a few links related to the article I mentioned about the Amazonian Piraha language -
The original article entitled “The Interpreter : Has a remote Amazonian tribe upended our understanding of language? Dan Everett believes that Pirahã undermines Noam Chomsky’s idea of a universal grammar. (The New Yorker APRIL 16, 2007 ISSUE) http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/04/16/the-interpreter-2 A feature about the language on NPR:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9458681 ( “Tribe Helps Linguist Argue with Prevailing Theory” )

Reply by CJ Fearnley (https://www.meetup.com/thinkingsociety/members/11861793/) July 16:

Wow, fascinating article!

I love the idea that the Pirahã live in the moment and therefore cannot conceive of abstractions like counting, history or the future. Powerful evidence that language and culture are inextricably connected.

Perhaps the Pirahã give us one profound example of taking the phrase "live in the moment" to its logical conclusion?

Maybe Chomsky is wrong: there may be no built-in grammar. I wonder if grammar is a function of a culture's world view? Perhaps, different world views imply different grammars?

Everett argues, contrary to Sapolsky, that recursion and embedded clauses do not occur in Pirahã because they are abstractions which are culturally anathema to them.

Perhaps what is unique about human language is that we can use recursion and embedded clauses, not that all human languages must contain recursion and embedded clauses. Fascinating!

Susan, thanks for finding that wonderful New Yorker article!