I also wondered about the validity of experimental tests results for race and language. That is, group inclusion may have deeper or more philosophical elements. Mere association and identity with a group through superficial habituated biases aren't sufficient to account for language preference.
One I traveled to Dublin Ireland and needed directions to a spot I was searching for with a rental car. I saw a policeman and asked him for directions. He gave me a very lengthy and complex set of directions- more than I would usually get from a stranger, and I followed them.
I wasn't from Europe and Irish accents even so are not as unusual as some Brit accents to understand. I drove right to the location as if I had recorded program code I could use with 100% recall.
Everett and Chomsky had different ideas about the origin of language. Regardless, it is easier to understand people with similar cultural history for language; the syntax and semantics are deeply structured or imprinted in mind.
So one may return to Sartre's tome The Critique of Dialectical Reason wherein he explains at great length how people collectively interact in a social environment each individual from his own point of view in it. Groups are like individuated social dialectical phenomena in-themselves. To understand the group and the language lexicon of the group-even nominal groups where the group symbol is the color of a shirt for example that is also the sole group identifier, is to find meaning.
Individuals find meaningfulness and coherence preferable to meaninglessness, and that is wrapped up in language. How deep the language structures go innately, and even inherently at least with language-brain capacity tailored to eco-social system challenges, is difficult to say.
No comments:
Post a Comment