Edwina, I will quote myself from the response I gave to Matt Faunce right before replying to you.
"Matt, list, Can you give your source for this? I cannot. I confess that my statement was not well-thought out. I did not mean to imply anything about the possibility of developing scientific terminology in any given human language. What I meant "about the development of a language to the point where it can articulate scientific terminology" is thinking about the case of where we find ourselves today, in the state in which scientific terminology has actually developed to the point it has. Obviously not every human language in history has developed to the point of having the terminology that the sciences today command. For example, the use of Latin words for developing terms identifying species in biology, and the whole host of such terms that have been developed. Or the development of mathematical language to the point where physical theories like the general and special theories of relativity can be articulated. I take it for granted though that it is widely acknowledged that human languages do differ with respect to the rules of construction and the things that can be said. If there has not been a vocabulary established in a given language for discussing projective geometry, people speaking only that language won't be able to say things about it without going through the work of developing a system of terminology in order to say things about it, or by translating from another language. My essential point though was just to point out that trying to look to human language as a model for representing reasoning, or the subject matter of logic, is an ill-considered and ill-advised venture, precisely because there is so much difference between human languages. It's not as though a universal human language has been discovered by linguists, so I raised concerns about Sungchul's reliance on 'human language' as his model for representing reasoning. If one is to accept Sunchul's approach, we would have to admit that there are different kinds of reasoning, one for each human language, and logic would cease to be a general science of reasoning, and would become indistinguishable from linguistics." If you think this statement does not clarify my position well enough, please let me know what specifically you feel continues to be an important issue. If it helps, by saying that human languages differ with respect to the things that can be said, I don't mean to imply that the language can't develop, say, a mathematical science that will permit it to talk about, say, principles of geometry. But if the work has not been done to develop that terminology, then the average member of that linguistic community will find it very challenging to think and express those principles, and will have to commit to developing the language in a determinate to talk about those sorts of ideas. I would like to add that you have not acknowledged that your own position, Edwina, is in conflict with Peirce's views, in that language does have an impact on what we think, and so does play some role in determining the thoughts we have, as individuals and as a community. Thought determines thought, and all thought being in signs, this means that language does determine thought to some extent. Your "radical freedom from language" theory is really just nothing but the discredited idea of the Cartesian ego. The habits of language persist and we are forced often to work within the confines of those habits. Yes, innovation and creativity is possible, but not in the "blank slate" way you suggest. Peirce would not have to spend so much effort on terminology, to the point of articulating an ethics of terminology, if the words we use don't matter for how we think. Just consider your debates regarding sign and representamen. Does it matter that you get that terminology right with everyone else, if you agree that language doesn't really matter and everyone really does understand already what is being thought about? Why care about getting clear about the language being used, if not to get clear about the thinking with everyone else? -- Franklin ---------------------------------------------- On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Franklin - I'm not sure that you are saying anything that much different > from your previous > > "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." > > I note that you refer not simply to the words available to the society but > to the logical rules-of-construction' and 'the things that CAN be > said'.....and your conclusion that not every human language can 'articulate > scientific terminology' seems to me the same conclusion in this post. > > I note again, that you refer to the 'rules of construction' and suggest > that in certain languages, these rules prevent scientific expression. How? > > My view is that ALL peoples have the SAME cognitive abilities, the same > logical capabilities - and they can adapt their languages to express ANY > thought. That includes new terms (we didn't refer to telephones 1,000 years > ago). Therefore - a language, such as, eg, that of the Dobe !Kung, can > readily either adapt and use the same word (telephone) or come up with > their own term. BUT - *cognitively and logically, since we all are the > same species* - then, we can all think the same way. Language - either in > its grammar or its words - does not confine or define us. > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Franklin Ransom <pragmaticist.lo...@gmail.com> > *To:* Peirce-L <PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Sunday, December 20, 2015 2:48 AM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations > > Edwina, list, > > I never meant to imply that language determines thought in toto. So far as > all thought is in signs, and a language represents a system of signs, and > signs determine other signs, then it must be admitted that language > determines signs and, since all thought is in signs, this means that > language determines (some) thoughts. That doesn't mean that every thought > anyone ever has is determined by a given language. It does mean that to a > significant extent, our thoughts are determined by the language in which we > express many of our thoughts, because those thoughts are to a great extent > interpretants of that language. > > I find it absurd that my position has been represented as 'sociolinguistic > relativism or determinism'. If you read what I said in attempting to > respond to Sunchul's query regarding language, I discussed the different > ways in which one could mean language, which included the consideration of > logic as the language of thought, as well as considering that language, > taken in a very broad sense, could include all the kinds of signs there > are. Moreover, I never agreed that human language is an appropriate way to > think of reasoning; in fact, I emphatically denied it, and was giving good > reason for why logic, which does engage in the analysis of thought, could > never be reduced to a study of human language. > > -- Franklin > > ------------------------------------------- > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > wrote: > >> 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 <cl...@lextek.com> >> *To:* Peirce-L <PEIRCE-L@LIST.IUPUI.EDU> >> *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 . >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------------------------------ > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
