The Symbolic Species The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain

washingtonpost.com ^ | 1997 | Terrence W. Deacon

[mlc9852]

Excerpt of his book. Interesting questions regarding the origin of language in humans.

[GLDNGUN]

And slowly, over the millennia, we have come to realize that no other species on earth seems able to follow us into this miraculous place.

LOL. Uhhh, maybe it's just dawned on a few people, but there's plenty of people that have known this as surely as the rising of the sun for a loooooong time.

[mlc9852]

You would think it would be obvious. LOL

[Emmalein]

Very detailed and thought provoking. Thanks.

[mlc9852]

It is thought-provoking. I never gave much thought to the origin of language and found it very interesting. Glad you enjoyed it, too.

[ml/nj]

What would be the characteristics of a nonhuman language that would allow us instantly to recognize it as a languagelike form of communication even if it were quite alien with respect to all human languages?

When 10s of thousands of birds in a flock all take off at the same time, don't bump into each other, and arrange themselves neatly, there has to be some sort of communication going on.

ML/NJ

[phantomworker]

Evolution is an irreversible process, a process of increasing diversification and distribution.

Very interesting... thanks!

[phantomworker]

I am also curious about this nonhuman language-like communication. It can be considered as highly evolved within its own realm.

[RightWhale]

Third convolution on the left. This development will atrophy from now on as MP3, iPod, and MTV take over the symbolization function in society.

[phantomworker]

Interesting ping.

[mlc9852]

But it isn't even close to human language. We are unique.

[phantomworker]

Symbols are incredibly powerful in a culture. Consider the effect of the simple symbol of the swastika on an entire nation. Scarey!

[phantomworker]

But are we that unique? Of course our written symbolic language is unique within our species. But how do we seem to communicate so well with animals like we do? There is something in common.

Some people say we are limited by our language.

[PatrickHenry]

Archive?

[RightWhale]

The sign. Words are signs, but so are photographs, cartoons, myths. There is a science of this stuff.

[ConsentofGoverned]

"Some people say we are limited by our language."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>................
to the many evolutionists, the idea that we are limited in our ability to understand creation , is due to the limits of human symbols - language/math to explain the basic questions of creation of life, and the structure of the Universe is a threat to their "Science"..and man has limited Gd- to man's limited capability to perceive the unknowable.

[phantomworker]

This isn't a debate on creationism. Suggest you go to this thread to discuss these issues:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1565707/posts?page=1142#1142

[ConsentofGoverned]

"This isn't a debate on creationism. Suggest you go to this thread to discuss these issues:"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>...............
obviously not- my remarks are at the basis of the limits of human capabilities and the use of language/ science/mathmatics as a tool (symbol) to try to overcome this limit in our understanding of the Universe- this is junk science-..sorry you are jumping to a conclusion- without using your limited symbol evaluating capability , you have served as one example of the limits inherent in any human methodology-self importance.

[phantomworker]

OK, I am bored. What do you want to discuss? (Minus any creationism references.)

[Virginia-American]

Thanks for the ping.

From The Descent of Man:

"The formation of different languages and of distinct species and the proofs that both have developed through a gradual process are clearly the same."

Almost the same: there's nothing like convergence in linguistics. IE, there is no external force driving language change, it's all inherited change.

I don't have the book in front of me (so I'm paraphrasing), but Merritt Ruhlen in The Origin of Language : Tracing the Evolution of the Mother Tongue uses a biological concept, "out-group comparison", in his logic. He says there are [a few] thousand species of mammal, all but six (?) (platypus and various echidnas) give live birth. Did Proto-Mammal lay eggs or have live birth? All biologists agree that Proto-Mammal laid eggs, because, 1) some mammals do, and 2) their closest non-mammal relatives, the reptiles, all do.

He employs this logic to argue that if a word is found in, say, Finnish and Samoyed, but no where else in Finno-Ugric, then, if it's also found in Yukaghir, (and isn't a loanword), it was part of the proto-Finnno-Ugric language, even thought it's not in Hungarian or Mansi, etc.

Ruhlen is arguing for the monogeneisis of language; in another book, On the Origin of Languages: Studies in Linguistic Taxonomy (BTW, much more technical), he gives a list of 20-some words that seem to be widespread throughout the world's languages.

The most famous example is "tik" meaning "finger"; it's the root behind "digit", "decimal", and perhaps "toe"; it's found in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas.

I just googled an interesting discussion of this: Babel and the Ancient Single Language of the Human Race" by G. R. Morton, as in Morton's Demon!

Ping to PH, VR and Junior; Check Glenn Morton's home page. All I've seen previously is his "demon" essay.