From: lgorbet@carina.unm.edu (Larry P Gorbet ANTHROPOLOGY)
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: Animal Grammar
Date: 15 Apr 92 12:58:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx._5yj73+
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <ARILD.92Apr15095937@milan.philosophie.uni-stuttgart.de> arild@adler.philosophie.uni-stuttgart.de writes:
>lgorbet@carina.unm.edu (Larry P Gorbet ANTHROPOLOGY) writes:
>   mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes: 
>   >  That's exactly the point.  We're not saying animals are stupid; only
>   >  that the structure of _human_ language is not found in them.
>
>   *The* structure of human language?  I don't think you or maybe any of
>   us reading this newsgroup think human language has some single,
>   unifying (abstract) structure -- isn't this a belief shared among
>   G-B types and folks who call themselves "cognitive linguists"?  
>
>Watch out--some "G-B types" and other cognitive scientists might be reading
>this newsgroup! 

Sorry, I realize my last sentence above had a scope ambiguity -- I meant
that I thought the "G-B types..." shared my skepticism.  You understood,
apparently, the opposite.
  
>What you say about the entire structure of human digestion etc. is of
>course true, but apart from that, what do you mean? That chimps have the
>same basis for evolving language? That may be true, but they haven't yet.
>
>   So it is at least not something that we can
>   rule out a priori that we can learn something about human language by
>   comparing it with other communication (and cognitive) systems used by
>   non-humans.  Not every human medical researcher cares about non-human
>   homologues, but that does not bear on the validity of those comparing
>   non-human systems.
>
>In the case of other bodily organs this may be true, but it is pretty clear
>that *structure* of language (not its function/effect--you also seem to be 
>confusing communication with language) is unique to humans. Give me an
>example to the contrary, and we'll talk. 

No, I'm not talking about function or effect.  I'm claiming that *SOME*
aspects of (human) language structure are shared with some aspects of the
communication systems structures of other animals.  This is, of course,
trivially true for phonetics and probably phonology (which *are* part of
human lg. structure).  Oops, just to be explicit and save some bandwidth:
I mean that some of phonetic...structure is shared.

I don't think *anyone* can make a case compelling to everyone for more
abstract aspects of structure, simply because (a) there is limited
agreement about the *structure* of human language (amply demonstrated 
almost daily here); and (b) we know *very* little about the structure of 
the communications systems of just those animals we would most like to
compare with.  This is no accident -- its intrinsic epistemology.  Those
things that most of us linguists are most interested in are also the things
which are most difficult to discover (or disprove!) using an objective
methodology.  Try doing almost any kind of synchronic morphology or 
syntax using the methods of animal communications researchers (that's *not*
a criticism of them -- it's an observation about the task they undertake).