No, I didn't say that. What I said is that the fetish of thinking that the syntax of the sentence is the be-all and end-all of linguistic analysis is misguided.
Nope, not what you said, you need to adjust your syntax.
Seriously though, of course it´s not the only important part.
Please cite evidence that it has "long since been flushed out of credibility." Who said that, when did they say it, where can I find it other than in an academic library in languages which I don't know?
It´s not a matter of who and when, but rather by how many and how often.
You might not find it by looking for linguistical research however, your best bet is probably to look for research done on progression of child development.
The idea of the "original language" is extremely old, but have essentially been debunked as variation between cultures, ages and individual differences have shown big holes in it.
As far as intellectual respectability is concerned, Anna Wierzbicka was awarded the 2010 International Dobrushin Prize by an institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. This is no small honor.
Never said she wasn´t good. But it´s her pet peeve and since it is essentially a "soft science", disproving it 100% is unrealistic, even though by now it´s probably at least at ~90% disproven.
A point where i just cannot accept it as likely any longer, no matter if it still has a fair number of supporters.
Basically, unless every single contraindicating research result so far ends up being proven wrong for some reason, the idea is dead in the water and sinking.
That´s not to say there´s absolutely no hints of truth in it, it has been shown that infants have a few concepts clear extremely quickly, but the relation to a "first language" is shaky.
Most likely, some of those concepts are there at birth, while others are gained by exposure.
And the basic idea that there are commonalites across languages, i agree completely with.
However, "first/original/natural/prime language" or the universal metalanguage like is described?
No. As long as there are ANY naturally occuring languages that completely lack one or several of those "universal" building blocks, that alone kills the idea stone dead instantly.
Looking at their list, concepts i know isn´t fully in *some* language:
Maybe
Because
Small OR Big(they use a scale with just either instead)
True (problematic to say the least)
One/Two (probably including Piraha)
Other
Also, pretty much all the time-related concepts have languages where they are more or less nonexistant.
And last time i read an article on anything relevant to this was probably last year so i currently have absolutely zero data to provide.
There is, by the way, no suggestion that interaction isn't important, but if that interaction exists, it will come in the same way that language comes. The one exception that's suspected to date is Pyraha, which seems to lack number words; it also seems to lack Chomsky-style recursion, which is interesting on a different level. The first hasn't, however, been studied by a linguist who is competent in NSM.
I assume you mean Piraha? I had to look it up before i realised what you meant.
And yes that´s one of the more interesting oddballs currently known. Not the only one though, but probably the most extreme.
I wouldn´t be surprised if they´re missing something when looking at Piraha though, the inconsistencies are too varied and off to just be random, "bad science" or fake.
There´s clearly a system there, and the people have used it successfully for quite a time, so my first guess would be to start looking for secondary information providers, like, are they also doing signs with their hands/fingers while talking? Are they using head movement as a modifier? Etc...
