>I find I have the impression that DG proponents eschew innateness. I'm
coming
>to the conclusion that this need not be the case. Innateness in Chomsky's
>terms is (clearly, I have always thought [1]) unsustainable.
## My impression is that most DG [= dependency grammar? just checking]
proponents don't care about innateness. I don't see any reason why the same
head shouldn't believe in both DG and specific innateness.

>
>I have been reading around the area of language origins (Andrew
>Carstairs-McCarthy [2]; Merritt Ruhlen [3]; Simon Kirby [4]; Luigi Luca
>Cavalli-Sforza[5].) I am now utterly convinced that the purported Language
>Acquisition Device is a theoretical figment (at best a convenience to avoid
>the origins issue.) But I cannot relinqush the general concept of
innateness.
>We should all (surely?) accept that Homo Sapiens Sapiens  is (in some way)
>predisposed to acquire a complex, arbitrary, combinatorial communication
>system, shouldn't we?
## Sure, everybody believes that, because it's obvious fact: we do it,
therefore we must be predisposed in some way to do it. The question is how
specific this ability is. Is it (1) specific to language (Chomsky) or is it
(2) a collection of more general cognitive abilities which are manifested
in other skills as well? Or indeed is it (3) a mixture of general abilities
and one or two abilities specific to language? Personally I think it's
likely to be (2) or (3), and I guess (3) is the best bet.

>
>Currently, I feel compelled to take the position that the 'universal'
>linguistic regularity arises from two principles:
>
>(A) our (sub) species has a common cognitive structure and function; and
>(B) Human language ultimately has a unified source.
>
>The DG hypothesis (as I perceive it) is fully compatible with this in that
DGs
>(in general, SFAICS) intend to derive linguistic abilities/principles from
>wider cognitive processes/principles.
## Surely we have to agree with (A). Again the question is simply how
specific these cognitive structures andd functions are. I don't think I
believe in a unified source if language evolved gradually; but of course if
you think it all happened with a single cataclysmic genetic leap (Eve) you
do have a unified source.


>
>Anyone have any particular views in this regard...?
>
>Dylan
>
>[1] That may surprise you, coming from an avowed non-DGer (I would never
>describe myself as a Chomskyan)
>[2] 1999 The Origins Of Complex Language (Oxford): 'Language-as it-is'
arises
>from simple consequences of (A) The lowering of the larynx enlarging the
>phonetic space; (B) Synonymy avoidance principles encouraging newly
available
>vocalisations to take on novel meanings; and (C) syntax exapts syllable
>structure to organize simplex word-strings.
>[3] 1994 The Origin Of Language (John Wiley & Sons): All extant languages
>descend from a common ancestor.
>[4] 1999 Function, Selection and Innateness (Oxford): 'Universals' are
>reflexes of general cognitive restraints.
>[5] 2001 Genes, Peoples and Languages (Penguin): Genetic phylology applied
to
>population migration and cultural diversification over geological time
>frames.
>
>

Richard (= Dick) Hudson

Phonetics and Linguistics, University College London,
Gower Street, London WC1E  6BT.
+44(0)20 7679 3152; fax +44(0)20 7383 4108;
http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm