Science Forums 2

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by LogicTech

No, I'm just stating what the traditional definition of language has been. Communication and language don't mean quite the same thing, as we use language as a way to communicate.

"Traditional?" I guess its traditional for Anthropologists and Linguists, but it's also quite parochial. There's been a lot of debate about whether or not animal languages are "true languages," but as I said earlier, its a highly subjective debate.

It's certainly fine to use the more strict definition--that pretty much guarantees an anthropocentric viewpoint--and all I'm saying is that in doing so you may well deprive yourself on insights into the role and meaning of "language" in the development of modern human society!

It will leave you making absolutist statements that will blind you to some of the developmental features you seek, as for example when you say:

Originally Posted by LogicTech

The great apes are also known to understand numbers too, and to be able to recognize themselves in the mirror too. But I never said that they couldn't have abstractions, but rather that their ability to express them is rather very limited.

"Limited" is a very subjective term! Some linguists looking at Koko the gorilla insisted there was no abstraction whatsoever, but many others see exactly the opposite.

They may for example not be able to convey anything more than "one" or "many" but there are some primitive societies that even today do not make use of numbers beyond what they can display on their hands! Most relevantly though, it begs the question: if you have no *need* to express numbers beyond "more than one" why would you develop a mechanism to *express* it, no matter how "smart" you are as a species?

Originally Posted by LogicTech

Also, there is quite a bit of evidence that language does indeed effect one's way of thinking, and the way you understand the world. So, language and abstract thought are very related.

That's fine, but that actually supports what I'm saying: language and abstract thinking are co-factors, and my opinion is that lanugage predated the abstract thinking and cultural factors that led to "modern languages" by a considerable bit.

Think about it: Language does require quite a bit of genetic tinkering to actually work. I'm a fan of Stephen Jay Gould and have no problem with the Punctuations between Equilibria, but really what your OP is saying is that there language came last, as a consequence of those abstract thinking and cultural factors that made it necessary and thus selected for--and uniquely for Homo Sapiens at that!

My opinion is that there's just as strong an argument--bolstered by the existence of "pre-languages" (if you want to insist on that qualification) in more primitive species--that says that language evolved relatively early, and there's increasing evidence (see below) that justifies that opinion.

This is just one example of where anthropocentrism can blind you to the interesting conclusions, and really I'm only warning you of this because you keep saying things that are so Sapiens-chauvenist as:

Originally Posted by LogicTech

Now, while animals certainly do and can have abstractions, it's nowhere near the level that humans could do. I'm pretty certain my cat doesn't have a concept of the world beyond my house and backyard...

What good would that do the cat? Conversely, cats in particular are very sophisticated when it comes to actually psychologically manipulating their human "masters" (and if you have a cat in the house and consider yourself the master then it's simply proof that the cat is in *complete* control!)...

Originally Posted by LogicTech

However, there is boatloads of evidence that modern ideas of art, culture, language, religion, music, empirical thought, etc. originated some 50k-60k years ago, as that's when they all appeared rather abruptly.

But note that these things are abstract thinking and complex societal interactions, not language!

I absolutely agree that evidence of these "modern ideas" did indeed become quite obvious, and probably quite quickly, but there is absolutely no reason to believe that the existence of language for much less sophisticated purposes, but largely with modern attributes of "syntax" and "indirect representation," did not significantly predate this Great Leap Forward.

This development of ideas and society did not require any major genetic changes and could easily have occurred in a span of less than 10,000 years. But this provides no proof that modern language went from zero to 60 in that same time period.

So I'll continue to argue with you when you insist that:

Originally Posted by LogicTech

This is all moot anyway, because I don't particularly care when, but how it had arisen, and why seemingly so abruptly? Why not 100,000 years ago, or among other genus...

Cultural development could have happened at any time. Fans of The Hitchhikers Guide are convinced that Dolphins are already socially and intellectually more sophisticated than Sapiens, but they just don't have the egotistical edifice complexes that we do!

So yes, it's exactly the point, not a moot one: our language did indeed become more sophisticated 50k years ago, but its actually quite likely that it was 80% there at that point in time.

Originally Posted by LogicTech

Well, I would like to see this.

Okay! Here ya go:

Originally Posted by Nicholas Wade, Neanderthals Had Important Speech Gene, DNA Evidence Shows, NY Times, 10/19/07

Neanderthals, an archaic human species that dominated Europe until the arrival of modern humans some 45,000 years ago, possessed a critical gene known to underlie speech, according to DNA evidence retrieved from two individuals excavated from El Sidron, a cave in northern Spain.

The new evidence stems from analysis of a gene called FOXP2 which is associated with language. The human version of the gene differs at two critical points from the chimpanzee version, suggesting that these two changes have something to do with the fact that people can speak and chimps cannot.
...
The human version of the FOXP2 gene apparently swept through the human population before the Neanderthal and modern human lineages split apart some 350,000 years ago.

Yes, you can say that not everyone agrees with the analysis (did everyone agree with Einstein in 1916?), and even the authors say that it does not prove that Neandertals had "human like" speech, but you have to ask yourself: why was it so successfully selected for in the genetic record?

While as I said I'm a Punctuated Equilibrium fan, *exploitation* of such genetic advances are actually quite gradual, and I think it's easily arguable that this data supports the notion that the development of "human language" at least *started* 350,000 years ago.

No problem if you disagree with this, but at least pose some arguments more scientifically supported than "my cat doesn't care!"

Originally Posted by LogicTech

As for the 50k years, this article is where I got the figure from: Klein: Behavioral and Biological Origins of Modern Humans 3 of 3

You will notice that modern behaviors and a recognizable culture originated around that time. It is therefore likely that language also appeared on the scene too, as language is very heavily influenced by a given culture.

"Likely?" Cool! But why do you think so? Even in this article, Richard Klein--who's unquestionably well respected, so kudos for picking the source--says:

Originally Posted by Richard Klein, Three Distinct Human Populations (undated)

I imagine that what happened 50,000 years ago was a highly advantageous mutation that produced a brain in which these things, these different parts were now very much better wired together, something of that sort. And then we have language as we understand it and this rapid spread from Africa and all the cultural innovations that obviously depended upon language and that allowed this spread from Africa. But I cannot show that in terms of the skulls that we have; they do not reveal the internal structure of the brain. Neanderthal skulls are differently shaped but I can't argue from that that they function differently from ours. So in that sense, my idea about a mutation, I think it's the most economic one available to us but it's not a great scientific hypothesis because at the moment it can't be falsified. [emphasis Buffy]

Moreover, As I read what he's saying you overestimate what he means by this mutation: it's not one that creates the language centers mentioned above from whole cloth, but rather a minor change in linkage of *existing* brain centers, which may not have had anything to do with "language" development per se, but rather intellectual and sociological sophistication! If you carefully read his paper again with my hypothesis above, you'll note that what he's said leaves the door wide open to my hypothesis as well, which has simply--until recently with the research referenced above--not been thought about *because* of the anthropocentric chauvinism concerning language being "uniquely human."

Originally Posted by LogicTech

You have to realize that while animals can certainly reason, communicate, make abstractions, use/make tools etc. They don't have a culture (as Michio Kaku put it when trying to recognize sentient life on other planets on a T.V. show I once saw). They don't have a philosophical tradition, or a way of generalizing or understanding relationships in the world around them. And they certainly appear incapable of coming up abstractions to describe things.

And that's exactly what I've been saying, the problem is only that in the OP you've put "language" up as having these things as a prerequisite.

I'm only arguing that that is putting the cart before the horse!

Originally Posted by LogicTech

Language is well defined though, there is nothing ambiguous about it. And the fact that there is a structure to all languages ever found in all human tribes and societies, even isolated ones, clearly contradicts your statement. It is very clear, from a linguistic point of view, that it was developed independently. But they certainly have a structure and a set of rules that allows us to derive meaning from them. This is a universal trait in all human societies, even the most isolated ones.

Bee dances have structure too! As I said in my previous post, structure and syntax human languages did indeed "develop independently." But saying that that is proof that human language is somehow unique is disproved by what little scholarship has been done, and the incuriosity of researchers on this topic that is indeed generated by anthropocentric chavinism is the main reason there's not more!

That's all I'm trying to do here: your question is an interesting one, but if you keep trying to restrain the discussion to "traditional" definitions of "language" you're going to miss the interesting discoveries that are hidden here.

Boy, and I get thrashed for being "traditional" about the Big Bang too!

Originally Posted by LogicTech

So, I don't see how you can conclude that the earliest languages didn't have a syntax, because that's a requirement of language. All this shows is that you underestimate just how intelligent early humans were, as they very clearly recognized the need for a syntax.

That's only because I'm arguing that "early languages" may have predated what you call "language" by some 300k years! I'm not even really insisting that they didn't, because I think that "existence of syntax" is something that is closely related to Information Theory, in that any pattern whatsoever can be evidence of organization (or lack of entropy), and thus is a gradual development (something that is quite frankly easy to see in the family tree of modern languages, and therefore there's no reason not to extrapolate it backward in a hyperbolic manner into the past).

So, I don't see any evidence to support your notion that this increase in complexity was abrupt:

Originally Posted by LogicTech

What I'm wondering is how they derived such principles, and why so abruptly (or was it that abrupt, maybe the rules just kind of fell together very early on before there was a need to formalize them)? Why didn't it happen earlier in time, why did they wait 80,000 years for it to happen...

...and that I argue has everything to do with culture, social interactions, and increasing intellect that drove a demand to take the means of communication--most of which was already there--and use it in a more sophistcated way, not to invent it from whole cloth.

Originally Posted by LogicTech

That's great, but rather irrelevant and off topic on this thread....

Oh but it has everything to do with my point and it's quite on topic, you just have to be less structured and traditional in your thinking to see why....

He's not Herbert! We reach.
Buffy