From: Patrick C. Ryan
Message: 26323
Date: 2003-10-10
----- Original Message -----
From: "ehlsmith" <ehlsmith@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Glen, regarding...
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick C. Ryan" <proto-
> language@...> wrote:
> > Dear Ned:
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "ehlsmith" <ehlsmith@...>
> > To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 1:27 AM
> > Subject: Re: [tied] Glen, regarding...
> >
> >
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick C. Ryan" <proto-
> > > language@...> wrote:
. . .
> [NS]
> Dear Pat,
>
> It is my understanding that those scientist who have studied the
> issue believe there are neurological factors involved. Yes, those
> neurological factors probably have a genetic basis, but the point is
> that they are factors common to _all_ humanity, so while genetics is
> involved _genetic variation_ is not.
<PCR> I am not aware of any scientific study which purports to show that there are *NO* neurological differences among the various ethnic groups. Could you point me to one?
> The hypothesis is that human infants have a unique ability to
> discriminate between many subtly different spoken sounds, and
> eventually to easily reproduce those sounds- abilities which older
> humans have irretrievably lost. Sounds heard frequently in the crib
> lead to the development in the malleable brains of infants of neural
> circuits devoted exclusively to distinguishing or reproducing such
> sounds. The brains of older humans lack this malleability and are
> stuck with the circuits they acquired in their own infancy. These
> neurological factors are often called "imprinting".
<PCR> Yes, of course, but the question is really how did the phonologies get to be so different. Are you proposing random variation?
. . .
> [NS] Showing that 2 phenonema will occur together does nothing to
> establish that one of them will cause the other; this is the post hoc-
> propter hoc fallacy.
<PCR> Yes, of course. However, there are many physical characteristics that are variably inherited like tongue size and mobility, general energy level, size of oral cavity, etc. that presumably could have an effect on phonology.
> > Let us take a concrete example. If a certain segment of a
> population substitutes a fricative (/f/) for an aspirated stop
> (/pH/), we can make one of two basic assumptions: that segment finds
> it difficult (or impossible) to replicate /pH/; or that segment does
> not properly hear /pH/, and cannot distinguish it from /f/. Both
> scenarios imply physical causes. If the underlying cause is physical
> in nature, then it is the result of genetic differences.
> >
>
> [NS] See the neurological explanation above, but even without that I
> would dispute your general statement that all causes of a physical
> nature must be due to genetic differences. Diet, disease exposure,
> climate factors, use vs non-use, etc. etc. could all be involved. In
> this specific case of course I contend that use vs. non-use appears
> to be a _much_ more likely explanation.
<PCR> "use vs. non-use" of what? Phonemes?
> > Certainly there are differences between the two
> > > populations in terms of both genetics and pronunciation, but
> newborn
> > > infants from one population brought up by adoptive parents of the
> > > other population will speak like their adoptive parents, not
> their
> > > genetic parents. You might as well propose that phonological
> changes
> > > are caused by diet or religion, or what sports one follows.
> >
> > <PCR> I acknowledge that, in general, those newborn infants from
> the imperfectly replicating population will speak like their adoptive
> parents. But why? Perhaps because they will be regularly and
> rigorously corrected, and even though great effort is necessary,
> eventually they will succeed.
>
> [NS]
> The overwhelming consensus of researchers, as I ubderstand it, is
> that no difference in effort is required in language acquisition
> between natural children or adoptive children, even adoptive children
> from other ethnic groups.
>
> [PCR] The effort is expended by the correcters.
> In the imperfectly replicating population, obviously, by definition,
> newborn infants will not be regularly corrected, and no great effort
> will be necessary.
> >
>
> [NS]
> Under your hypothesis great efforts would be required from them to
> acquire the language patterns of their new families, no?
<PCR> No, not what I said or meant.
> [PCR]
> > But the major question, which you do not seem to address, is why an
> imperfect replication becomes the norm in a given segment of a
> population rather than just an "acceptable" variation.
> > Do you have any ideas on that?
>
> [NS] See above.
<PCR> "See above" just does not get it. Until you can answer the major question, many of us will not be satisfied.
> Regards,
> Ned Smith
Pat
PATRICK C. RYAN | PROTO-LANGUAGE@... (501) 227-9947 * 9115 W. 34th St. Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES: PROTO-LANGUAGE: http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/ and PROTO-RELIGION: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/proto-religion/indexR.html "Veit ec at ec hecc, vindgá meiði a netr allar nío, geiri vndaþr . . . a þeim meiþi, er mangi veit, hvers hann af rótom renn." (Hávamál 138)