Why isn't language genetically encoded into a person's

>>9142151
The evolution of languages is probably too fast for the evolution of the human. Maybe if our languages degenerate to a point, where mutations (and combinations) of it don't have a big impact. But the language would probably be "animal-like", with what we indeed are already born with (loughing, crying, sounds of pain, sounds of joy etc.).

>>9142151
Culture is a basically the next level of genetics because it allows of evolution at a much quicker timescale. We don't need to homogenize a population to have claws if one person can make a spear and teach everyone else to.

>>9142151
Thomas sebeok and Noam Chomsky would like to have a word with you

>>9142151
The only way for that to be possible is if we were able to ingrain a specific language e.g. english in our DNA? :S

>>9142151
Wrong question. Most things don't work genetically. How should language do it?
Listen, humans evolved in way that made our offspring learn to recreate sounds they hear at a ridiculously high pace - and in the process dislearns to recreate all the other sounds they don't hear often enough. You get wired to speak with a certain range of possible sounds and no scholarly understanding can give you that ability. Language is not nurtured. And it is not natured either, because in fact your genetics enable your brain to learn all the languages. Same with language change. Read Rudi Keller's "On Language Change" for an idea of how funny your insinuations here sound.
>>9142178
Rudi Keller, "On Language Change" for you, too. Fucking /sci/, I swear.
>>9142239
You probably made a joke so that's fine in my book.

>>9142251
i wasn't joking. My intuition is that language can't be encoded in DNA.

>>9142264
Then I phrased myself poorly. You are right about that as far as I can tell by knowing as little about language development and change as I do by reading a book about it.

>>9142365
Because what is OP saying by language genetically encoded in DNA? Is he saying grammer is genetically encoded? If that's what he meant, then since you would have to learn a specific language's words anyway... then its indistinguishable from the state of language learning now as far as i'm concerned. So for language to be encoded in the sense that OP suggests (minimal to no intervention), it would literally be like having the dictionary of a language encoded in your DNA no?

>>9142151
Language is highly complex and its very much needed crazy fast variations wouldn't play well with the leisurely pace of evolutionary changes.

>>9142151
BTFO

>>9142151
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOXP2

>>9145722
Not sure thats same thing

It is.

>>9142151
>Why isn't language genetically encoded into a person's DNA?
Why do you believe it isn't?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_of_the_stimulus

>>9145871
I think he means a specific language. PoS arguments indicate a general capacity for language (language faculty) is part of human biology, but the specific language you speak isn't, though it's surely constrained by the properties of however the language faculty is instantiated.

Genetic memory would be awesome