At 7:07 AM -0600 11/6/07, Christopher D. Green wrote:
There are many people who study the natural communicative forms of
non-human animals. Nevertheless, there is a legitimate question
about the specificity of human language to humans alone. One way to
study this question is to see whether and to what degree other
animals can learn human languages.
David E. Hall wrote:
Not being well versed in this debate, can someone clarify for me
why the discussion is always about animal acquisition of human
language and human constructs? The whole discussion strikes me as
terribly anthropocentric and subsequently blind to the possibility
of language as symbolic, semantic, structured, and
generative/productive manifesting in forms qualitatively distinct
from human forms. Creating environments for animals to learn and
express language on human terms may not tap that animals innate
capacity.
And, even if there are aspects of language that are unique to humans,
we can still identify and study functions which are common to human
and nonhuman organisms, and do so controlled research on the
mechanisms of language acquisition and usage that are no practically
and ethically possible with human subjects.
--
The best argument against Intelligent Design is that fact that
people believe in it.
* PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University *
* 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 *
* http://krypton.mnsu.edu/~pkbrando/ *
---
