On
the Discovery Channel I once saw a special on elephants. Apparently they have
at least 37 separate "words" they use to communicate with each
other.
On the
discovery channel I once saw a special on UFO's. Apparently they have been
visiting us for 50 years, it started at Roswell and some of them hang out at
area 51. Doesn't make it true cause it was on TV.
I
also think the whole emphasis on language has some rather large
holes.
1.
There are a host of other things that only humans do: fly airplanes, invest in
the stock market, play sports, build cities, etc.
I agree.
But I fail to see how this punches a hole in my original claim, let alone a
large one!
2.
Many distinctly human characteristics, including language, are
geo-historical. They are not invariant human
characteristics.
We have
two claims here. One theoretical, the other empirical. It is claimed that
language is a social construction, something which does not arise as a result
of an innate species endowment. This claim can be assesed via the usual
methods of scientific inquiry, and have been for the past 50 years in the so
called cognitive revolution, through work on generative and universal grammar
for instance. Of course one may dismiss this via a philosophical critique of
the scientific method but I fail to see what this has to do with a "realist
philosophy of science". The empirical claim is that there has existed a time
and place were humans have lived in the complete absence of language. If thats
the case what is the time and place?
3.
Some people are deaf and dumb and illiterate. Language for them may not mean
the same thing as it does for people who can hear and speak. Yet most of us
would not even consider saying people who don't hear, speak, and read are not
human. There's something else that we base this judgment
on.
illiterate
people can talk. Deaf people "speak" sign language, and all sign language is
grammatical and consistent with lingusitic theory. True, some people dont
speak but this is tied in with point 4.
4.
Up to a certain age, human children do not communicate via language. Again,
this doesn't make them inhuman.
The human
language faculty unfolds as a result of a maturational process, like puberty.
Nothing paradoxical here, and certainly no hole.
5.
Young children and others communicate with non-linguistic means. To my mind,
this demotes language per se as the medium for communication while
simultaneously promoting other species to the status of communicative
animals.
Language
and communication are different issues. To say that animals "communicate" as
with humans is only to assert that we are animals. Like animals eat, and so do
we. Language is a means of human communication which no other animal has, but
that we communicate through non lingustic means is not denied nor is to make a
premier league ranking system.
Judging by
Mervyn's remarks previously I do not think that Bhaskar would claim that the
human language faculty is a social construction or geo-historical. If he does,
he is in trouble!