"Different than......".

quote:

view the memory/executive planning as analogous to machine code, and expressed communication as analogous to an Interpreted Language (Basic, C, Java etc). That is, we reverse-compile in order to communicate.

That explains in a nutshell, without beating about the bush and without any hint of fannying about

quote:

"a codified method of storing memory and planning executive action" doesn't seem carelessly framed, even on review.

It's precisely stated, but it doesn't seem like a definition of language to me. I suspected you were thinking in terms of an analogy with programming languages, but it's important to bear in mind that to call even C or basic a 'language' is a figurative use of the term. Certainly in this context I don't see why using the terms 'language' or 'machine code' is any more illuminating or useful than just saying 'the workings of the brain'. If you were to suggest that the brain worked before the development of a spoken language, or that the development of language must have had an intimate relationship with the workings of the brain, I'd be bound to agree.

Actually David, having re-read the thread I'm going to stay where I am in the sense that whilst this is a fascinating debate it is, as far as I can tell, facilitated by and based upon personal opinion combined with the bringing to the table of various disciplines e.g. philosophy. Fascinating as it is the whole debate has basically sidestepped the rather fundamental point that linguistic investigation answers the point raised in the original post and pretty much all the issues subsequently raised.

Unfortunately, we all speak a language and thus we all feel we start from an informed starting point when this is actually open to question. Let's perhaps pose a question that in being answered may provide useful information.

Who here has studied language (not the same as learning one) or ever read linguistic theory? I have read Chomsky, Deutscher and Pinker. The latter is somewhat maverick but interesting neverthelessless

I don't for a minute mean to suggest this is about what we've read. My point is that other disciplines bring something to the table and widen the discussion. The answer to the questions posed though is already contained within linguistic study so debating that which is already resolved is a bit like restarting a debate on whether the world is flat.

Mike

I got halfway down the first page and started to lose the will to live...

Mike your confidence in popular science books may be somewhat misplaced. And I'm still not sure you've grasped why I've said what I have. But that's OK.

FWIW my degree is in English Language and Literature and did include some linguistics, including Chomsky (well it was bound to include Chomsky). It was all rather a long time ago now.

I was told recently that at least one language has been discovered which appears to break Chomsky's fundamental rules of depth grammar. Interesting if true. I also learned that a friend of mine once hitched a lift from him while travelling in South America. Apparently he was in a bad mood and didn't say much.

quote:

I got halfway down the first page and started to lose the will to live..

Quick everyone, write more!

Language developed to aid communication between 2 or more individuals. You didn't need language to "communicate" with yourself.

Someone talked of "planning" a visit to the supermarket. If I go to the supermarket, I don't plan anything - I go and get what I want. If I ask someone else to go for me I use language to tell them what I want.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Dudley:
I got halfway down the first page and started to lose the will to live...

And how many others?

Pseuds corner anyone?

quote:

If I go to the supermarket, I don't plan anything - I go and get what I want.

Many people make lists.

quote:

Originally posted by Fraser Hadden:
I view the memory/executive planning as analogous to machine code, and expressed communication as analogous to an Interpreted Language (Basic, C, Java etc). That is, we reverse-compile in order to communicate.

I think that you would class the latter only as 'language', while I would class the machine code as language too.

Is this a fair representation of your view?

Sorry Fraser, but i'm not sure I understand the distinction between the two, so can't really comment.

Mike Hughes is right that this thread went off-piste quite early on.

Mike, I majored in English and Drama & Film going on to complete honours in Drama & Film. The latter was a fascinating course encompassing semiology, literary theory and disciplines such as psychoanalysis that impact on literary theory. Authors that spring to mind are Foucault, Williams, Derrida, Barthes. During this time I also wrote an essay that set out to examine and define a language of music videos.

David,

I missed 2 key words from my earlier post. It should have read "recently re-read".

I have little faith in popular science but then I wouldn't put Deutscher in that category. Equally I find Chomsky tedious. Same book and arguments for what, maybe 25 years now? Pinker I think is more comedian than scientist but that's just my opinion.

I'm not sure I did miss your point. I think it's an interesting one buy I also think it's nothing to the point here and falls into the realms if a personally held belief that isn't sustained my mainstream linguistic theory but gains some currency when derived from other disciplines such as philosophy.

Anyway, I'm heading off piste too so best rein it in.

Mike

quote:

Pseuds corner anyone?

Either that or political correctness gone mad , or what was the other one? Nanny state? Yes that was it.

The Pythons would have loved it.

And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.

Let's have more.