Deciphering a Metaphor

I have been thinking about my lastpost andHubert Haiber ’s argument that “Natural languages have the properties they have because they reflect the properties which our language-learning and language-using human brain capacities can cope with.” ( SeeAn anthropic principle in lieu of a “Universal Grammar) This principle might seem self-evident, even circular, but it is a direct challenge to the concept of an innate, universal grammar. Indeed, Haiber is attacking Chomsky ’s innate (a.k.a. nativist) principle directly: “Nobody has ever been able to produce immediate and compelling evidence in favour of the strong nativist hypothesis.” Disagreeing with Chomsky is hardly news, and I would probably let the paper pass by if it weren’t for a second feature, the me taphor of grammar as a virus. ("On the level of cognitive structures, grammars are self-reproductive in the same way as a virus…”) Viruses need a host to multiply and so, goes the metaphor, do grammars.Only, Haiber insists he is not speaking metaphorically. “A Grammar is--even literally--a cognitive virus programme. It reproduces itself, but it needs a host that provides a  replication environment, just as any virus does. Grammars ‘infect’ human brains as a result of language acquisition. The cognitive virus corresponding to the grammar of our m other tongue governs our language production behaviour.” But Haiber is confused. Is he talking about Grammar (as he specifies at the start of the quotati...

Source: Babel's Dawn - October 14, 2018 Category: Speech-Language Pathology Authors: Blair Source Type: blogs