tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1707444165003305798.post4737287350032474043..comments2023-10-24T17:21:16.565+02:00Comments on Sounds in the Hickory Wind: The Origins of LanguageThe Hickory Windhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02099970252405596982noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1707444165003305798.post-5173540796021172742011-02-09T19:36:48.060+01:002011-02-09T19:36:48.060+01:00I think it is possible to separate tonality from p...I think it is possible to separate tonality from prosody in theory but in hearing a speaking voice I think it is very difficult to distingiush one from the other (or at least it is difficult in the average bit of speech.)<br /><br />If we started to get a grasp on the use of the concepts we could compare it to how dogs for example understand subtle body positioning.<br /><br />The evolution of our language is still in its infancy in some senses. This is a point I start from in many of these blogs:<br /><br />http://www.bretthetherington.net/Services/Categories/Pages/Category.aspx?categoryId=399Brett Hetheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05702371494104087763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1707444165003305798.post-83650000589262184832011-02-07T12:24:34.638+01:002011-02-07T12:24:34.638+01:00MW,
BTW your QSL card is on its way.MW,<br /><br />BTW your <a href="http://wordsinthehickorywind.blogspot.com/2011/01/hickory-qsl.html" rel="nofollow">QSL card</a> is on its way.The Hickory Windhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02099970252405596982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1707444165003305798.post-49865263296147431292011-02-07T12:22:39.216+01:002011-02-07T12:22:39.216+01:00Brett,
It seems likely there is a strong genetic ...Brett,<br /><br />It seems likely there is a strong genetic element to the association of sounds to objects, because a lot of animals do it, at least at the level of a sort of oral gesture, but from there to recursive syntax is a very long way, and it's anyone's guess.<br /><br />The importance of writing to a community I should imagine to be a cultural matter, although you may well be right; will we ever know?<br /><br />By 'tone of voice', do you mean prosody, the expression of emotion in general, (or perhaps tonality)?The Hickory Windhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02099970252405596982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1707444165003305798.post-68774117730890894762011-02-05T20:51:33.807+01:002011-02-05T20:51:33.807+01:00MW
I know people who still talk like that!
Vince...MW<br /><br />I know people who still talk like that!<br /><br />Vincent<br /><br />It wasn't my intention to denigrate speculation. In this field it's almost the only thing we have, and a great deal of imagination is required to construct a theory, and a great deal more to find a way to test it. But some ideas are a bit too wild.<br /><br />Chomsky did indeed ask a lot of the right questions, and found ways to look for answers, contributing much to the field of linguistics. But the Language Acquisition Device is something of a copout.The Hickory Windhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02099970252405596982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1707444165003305798.post-67901940452865107982011-02-05T17:51:35.814+01:002011-02-05T17:51:35.814+01:00Yes, as you say "we know almost nothing about...Yes, as you say "we know almost nothing about how language evolved." The theories about it are fascinating though. I lean towards the genetic explanation for not much more reason than some ethnic groups seem to be naturally more inclined towards using language than others. Jews, for example tend to be more verbal and adept at written language than say, indigenous Soth Americans, judging by literature output per head. <br /><br />As you also say, there is some anecodotal evidence that suggests that "the mind wants to communicate with others, not with itself" though internal 'dialogue' is surely a crucial factor in the individuals development of ideas and therefore the expression of them through language. <br /><br />To my mind, the really under-explored area of language is 'tone of voice.'Brett Hetheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05702371494104087763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1707444165003305798.post-54890933790493882562011-02-05T01:15:15.193+01:002011-02-05T01:15:15.193+01:00I think you aren't being fair to Chomsky's...I think you aren't being fair to Chomsky's idea of the built-in language capacity. Chomsky may not be admirable as a political activist, and may not be much good at anything any more, but he certainly has been a great thinker on language. (Bertrand Russell in a similar way remained famous and exploited his originally well-earned reputation for many decades after he gave Principia Mathematica to the world.)<br /><br />Chomsky may not be right about the universal grammar etc, but he has asked the right questions, and produced some hypotheses which are valuable in providing something to test for true or false, and inspire generations of younger linguists.<br /><br />If, as you say, there are no fossils that can help establish the origins of language (and thus of language-based thought), I don't see why we should denigrate speculation. Science moves forward by testable hypotheses, but there is nothing invalid about producing hypotheses which may be currently non-testable, and perhaps never will be testable. The origin of language has this in common with God, or the after-life, in this respect.Vincenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18297306807695767580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1707444165003305798.post-64736534091336782562011-02-05T00:14:37.215+01:002011-02-05T00:14:37.215+01:00UGH AGH HAHA UGGA UGGA*
* That's my guess as ...UGH AGH HAHA UGGA UGGA*<br /><br />* That's my guess as to how language might have sounded when first invented. Obviously, they only had words for "UGH" and "AGH" and so on, the meaning of which is lost in time. Concepts like "onomatopoeia" needed a bit more work.Mark Wadsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.com