![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Stephan did indeed take me away to the lovely world of Blackadder, and we finished the third season. His favorite's next, the WWI season. In any case, he had dinner with Lauren and I went to see Jacob's amazing 17-tone piano project. It was fantastically amazing, and I'm only sorry I had to leave before the free-for-all and tag-team improvisation got under way. Jacob's thing was at 7, but Ben's recital started at 8.
Of course I would have gone even if Ben wasn't Stephan's housemate and my future accompanist; he was playing the Tchaik concerto. I will kill Stephan later for implying it was boring. I ran into a gaggle of old men coming out of the bathroom after the recital and heard them wondering whether he was done with his master's degree and that's why he hadn't put his class on his program, or if he was just finishing his first year. They were flabbergasted when I informed them he was a sophomore. I'm proud of him. And proud I get him next year :)
Now I may perhaps off to his post-recital party, since I managed to pop off a ling paper.
Greenberg's hypothesis that language evolution has four possible origin theories is a much more reasonable explanation of the positions than most people can give of the various explanations for the origin of life. He even compares language and life: "Perhaps we may come closer to the idea underlying all evolutionary approaches by considering that in every case we have to do with the explanation of a variety of forms, whether biological species, languages, or cultural systems, came to be." There's creationism: the Tower of Babel. And transformism, whether monogenetic or polygenetic.
Now, I've never studied systems, but this seems an awful lot to me like the beginning of a juncture between several fields of science, of which linguistics only recently became one. The concept of interaction between systems, whether they be fields of dark matter, low-pressure masses, species, cultures, linguistic groups, or psychological conditions, seem to have more in common than it would at first appear. An evolutionary approach to language is kind of a magical way to interpret it; interaction between cultures (and the difficulty sometimes of distinguishing between language and culture) is enough like interaction between species to study them by theoretically identical methods. It worked for biology. Transformism is evolution, and that's the eventuality Greenberg explores.
The sheer diametrical opposition of Chomsky's theory that syntax can be studied with complete independence from semantics, if one accepts the validity of this theory, makes an evolutionary approach to language look as ludicrous as most mainstream medical specialists find holistic medicine. If language evolved, whether or not there was a single point of creation or many from which to diverge, then every aspect of language, even the idiosyncratic relationship of syntax to semantics, ought to have some relevance. Deep-structure syntax, if removed from all meaning and studied on its own as the only relevant facet of language, may be as one-sided and futile a study as cataloguing all the ligaments in the human body with no regard for their relationship to muscles and bones and therefore functionality. Doubtless it'd be an interesting study, but a lot of things would be awfully confusing if one intentionally excluded any influence the rest of the body might have on their position, flexibility, tensile strength... the analogy is a stretch, but it seems that if Chomsky wants to construct a grammar of language L, he'll have to look at what the individual words mean. Especially if the language evolved, rather than being spontaneously created by a mutation forming a Language Organ.
Of course I would have gone even if Ben wasn't Stephan's housemate and my future accompanist; he was playing the Tchaik concerto. I will kill Stephan later for implying it was boring. I ran into a gaggle of old men coming out of the bathroom after the recital and heard them wondering whether he was done with his master's degree and that's why he hadn't put his class on his program, or if he was just finishing his first year. They were flabbergasted when I informed them he was a sophomore. I'm proud of him. And proud I get him next year :)
Now I may perhaps off to his post-recital party, since I managed to pop off a ling paper.
Greenberg's hypothesis that language evolution has four possible origin theories is a much more reasonable explanation of the positions than most people can give of the various explanations for the origin of life. He even compares language and life: "Perhaps we may come closer to the idea underlying all evolutionary approaches by considering that in every case we have to do with the explanation of a variety of forms, whether biological species, languages, or cultural systems, came to be." There's creationism: the Tower of Babel. And transformism, whether monogenetic or polygenetic.
Now, I've never studied systems, but this seems an awful lot to me like the beginning of a juncture between several fields of science, of which linguistics only recently became one. The concept of interaction between systems, whether they be fields of dark matter, low-pressure masses, species, cultures, linguistic groups, or psychological conditions, seem to have more in common than it would at first appear. An evolutionary approach to language is kind of a magical way to interpret it; interaction between cultures (and the difficulty sometimes of distinguishing between language and culture) is enough like interaction between species to study them by theoretically identical methods. It worked for biology. Transformism is evolution, and that's the eventuality Greenberg explores.
The sheer diametrical opposition of Chomsky's theory that syntax can be studied with complete independence from semantics, if one accepts the validity of this theory, makes an evolutionary approach to language look as ludicrous as most mainstream medical specialists find holistic medicine. If language evolved, whether or not there was a single point of creation or many from which to diverge, then every aspect of language, even the idiosyncratic relationship of syntax to semantics, ought to have some relevance. Deep-structure syntax, if removed from all meaning and studied on its own as the only relevant facet of language, may be as one-sided and futile a study as cataloguing all the ligaments in the human body with no regard for their relationship to muscles and bones and therefore functionality. Doubtless it'd be an interesting study, but a lot of things would be awfully confusing if one intentionally excluded any influence the rest of the body might have on their position, flexibility, tensile strength... the analogy is a stretch, but it seems that if Chomsky wants to construct a grammar of language L, he'll have to look at what the individual words mean. Especially if the language evolved, rather than being spontaneously created by a mutation forming a Language Organ.
From: (Anonymous)
no subject
Anyway... I have an amusing CD now. I must show you. In like, June, or something. It's more expanded versions of TLK music by the same people. It's been entertaining me a lot.
Okay... >.> time for more procrastination. <.<
Nia
From:
no subject
Haha, Chomskyans. My Ling department laughs at your Ling department. We try to see why anyone would believe his theories, but we usually can't come up with much. It'd be useful if we had a hardcore Chomskyite to argue his side properly, then it might not be so mysterious. Apparently he's ridiculously charismatic. That must be it.
Amusing CD! Are you sure I don't have it? Hey, you could burn it to a computer, put it in a zip file, load it to sendspace, and send me the link.
Procrastination!
From: (Anonymous)
no subject
In a fight, your Ling department would probably kick ours' ass. Even I have trouble understanding what Chomsky is talking about- too many unnecessarily long words and twisty sentences. And I've had two classes mostly about his ideas. o.O
Nia
From:
no subject
From: (Anonymous)
no subject