Carrol Cox
wrote:
>
> >CB: Anthropology has long
> > established language as a defining characteristic of the human species.
How> > Chomsky could think that it did not arise in the course of the
evolutionary origin of humans is amazing (if that's what he thinks).
>
Jerry Monaco:> Chomsky's thought is like this. It is a mistake to think of
"language" as for communication between humans as opposed to an organization
of the mind brain that may have facilitated thought. Thus it is possible
that before the language organ was used as a means of communication it could
have been simply an increased complexity of the brain that allowed for
greater conceptualization. This might mean that a random mutation that
allowed for the basic structure of language occurred before the physical
ability to communicate evolved. This would make language an evolutionary
spin-off of a certain complexity of the brain. He is suspicious of a
strictly adaptationist explanation of language but he does think tht
language was a biological development.
^^^^^ CB: This is a very crucial issue. I guess is really bold on my part, but I have to challenge the genius-linguist Chomsky on his evolutionary idea.
The critical difference that separated the first humans from their immediate ape precursors was not extra smart individuals with big brains (homo sapiens). It was super-sociality, including social connections to dead ancestors through language and culture ( homo communis). It was precisely the new brain's ability to communicate, not to do individual contemplation, that rendered such a big advantage over other primates.
Now I can see if we take Chomsky's brain focus to refer to a qualitatively new brain _that can symbol_, and therefore make culture and transgenerational messages , but without _talking_. In other words, if Chomsky means by the "language organ" the larnyx and the ability to speak. But I cannot accept his main point of "mistaking 'language' for communication between humans." _The communication between humans is the critical adaptive advantage in all this over the precursor ape species_ (emphasis !). There could be this type of communication through use of symbols other than spoken words. But _symbolling_ - using something to represent something that is is not _for communication to another human_ is critical. Symbolic sounds could be made by other means than the larnyx. But there has got to be the use of symbols to communicate to other humans to get the critical human adaptive advantage, in my opinion. There has got to be the ability to communicate across generations, from the dead to the living to get the full effect of the human adaptive advantage , in my opinion. To communicate from the dead to the living there must be symbolling ,or using something to represent something that it is not. This is because the experiences of the dead can only be represented to the living by something that is not those experiences, by symbols. Symboling is the only way to get across the death barrier. But once a way is gotten to get across the death barrier, a group can accumulate knowledge of experiences , as tradition and culture, that an individual brain, no matter how smart , could never accumulate.
^^^^^^^
Carrol :That language was a factor in human evolution _rather than_ an_invention_ of an already evolved "biologically modern human species"seems highly unlikely. (This may be what Ted means when he speaks of language as our "creature."
^^^^^^ CB: From the above, you can see I disagree with this. For one thing, most anthropologists don't follow Tattersall's thesis, so it is pretty much only for Tattersall that this seems "highly unlikely". What seems highly unlikely to most anthropologists is that there were biologically modern humans without language and culture. Most anthropologist site language and culture as the defining characteristics of the biologically modern human species. To consider as "biologically modern humans" beings who don't have language and culture contradicts this fundamental principle of anthropology. In fact, I think Sahlins and Geertz speculate that the origin of language and culture is _before_ the modern biological humans, sort of the opposite of Tattersall.
But that's just "authoritism" on my part. What is the reasoning ? Well, language and culture are what give humans the big adaptational advantage over other primates , the human precursor apes. To point to the common sense speculative doing things in cooperation , rather than individually, is a big advantage in all areas of production and reproduction. Language and culture give a qualitative advantage in doing things cooperatively, socially, communally. All predator/prey activities are given a qualitative advantage by doing them in groups. All reproductive activites are qualitatively advantaged by doing them cooperatively. Two (twenty) heads are better than one. Language and culture allow a merger of the "heads", including "heads" of dead people , who can leave understanding of their living experiences to their descendants through language and culture. As time goes on the number of "heads" involved in a groups pregnancies, childcare, hunts , gatherings increases.
So, it doesn't seem probable that groups of primates differentiated themselves biologically into "modern humans", i.e. speciated themselves from other primate species with potential language and culture as just "spandrel" sideeffects of some other change, and then 50,000 years later, language and culture just started happening. It seem much more probable that these abilities which have such enormous power to give a group adaptational advantage , advantage in production and reproduction, were critically active in creating the biological differentiation into a new species, modern humans.
My hypothesis would be that women invented language in order to communicate with children. Then it became generalized to all human activity. The first language or symbols might have been toys.
^^^^^^^
See the work of Ian Tattersall. [I am familiar with two of his books: _Becoming Human: Evolution and Human Uniqueness_ (Harcourt, 1998)and _The Monkey in the Mirror: Essays on the Science of What Makes Us Human_ (Harcourt, 2002).] In one of his essays he speculates that _homo sapiens_ had been around for as long as 50,000 years before "inventing" language. He further speculates on the possibility that language had been invented _and lost_ several times,_by children_, before it became established.
Carrol