Franklin Ransom is using a discredited analysis of language, referred to as sociolinguistic relativism or determinism, where language defines the knowledge base; i.e., language determines thought. Followers of this linear causality are such as Whorf-Sapir, and Basil Bernstein. It doesn't stand up to empirical analysis. But it enjoyed its own limelight within the works of various people who saw language or culture as determinant of thought, and even, there were some who suggested that some languages should be eradicated (eg native) because the language was defined as 'primitive' and prevented the users from thinking 'in a modern or scientific way'.
Instead, the human brain creates language and thus, can express anything by coming up with new terms and expressions. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Clark Goble To: Peirce-L Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 11:48 AM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations On Dec 14, 2015, at 3:08 AM, Matt Faunce <mattfau...@gmail.com> wrote: On 12/13/15 6:24 PM, Franklin Ransom wrote: Human languages differ with respect to the rules of construction and the things that can be said, and they also develop and evolve over time; the development of a language to the point where it can articulate scientific terminology is not a development shared by every human language. Can you give your source for this? I remember reading the opposite from two different linguists. Michael Shapiro is one. (I'd have to search for the exact statements, but the keyword I'd use is 'passkey'.) Edward Vajda writes " Human language is unlimited in its expressive capacity." "Today, it is quite obvious that people living with Stone Age technology speak languages as complex and versatile as those spoken in the most highly industrialized society. There are no primitive languages. Virtually no linguist today would disagree with this statement." I don’t know about that quote in particular. However a decade or so back Michael Tomasello had a fascinating book on the evolution of language in The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. While he doesn’t speak of it in Peircean terms he creates a model where it appears a certain kind of thirdness in terms of interpretation of signs develops. Once that evolves then he sees language’s capabilities as being largely there and develops fast. It’s been a while since I read it but I think he keeps the traditional dating of the evolution of language to around 80,000 - 100,000 years. The evolution after that is really developing the language and culture once you have the capability. I know he has a newer text based upon some lectures he gave called The Origins of Human Communication although I’ve not read that one. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .