In <bvd11c$k18$2@news.onet.pl>, "Piorokrat" <piorokrat@autograf.pl>
wrote:
>> At times he seems to be conflating at least three processes. There is
>> biological evolution itself, then there are two senses of the term
>> "linguistic evolution": the evolution of languages (e.g., Latin to
>> French), and the evolution of the capacity for language. As you know,
>> the latter is presumably a subset of biological evolution, and
>> scientists have attempted to account for it as such. The former
>> could, I suppose, be a subset of biological evolution, but Sockdaddy
>> needs to explain why.
>
>That's Sockuncle, to you.
>
>The reason is that languages are part of the human biology.
>
>Just say, just say that isn't true.
Oh, it must be true. That would explain why children who are adopted
internationally in infancy always speak the language of their
biological parents rather than their adopted parents.
(For the clue-impaired, "languages <> capacity for language".
--
Jack Dominey
jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 |
| 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 |
| 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 |
|