> and, to me, as a sociologist and marxist, i am completely drawn to the way
> so much of whatever it is that makes human language *human* language and
> unique, though not separate from other forms of animal communication, is
> the social aspects of it all. which is to say, we are unique in so far as
> we are highly social animals, but what turns out to be capacities in the
> language suite exhibited by other animals seem to be so because of *their*
> sociality.
I'm sympathetic to this way of looking at the matter, and I'm sure there's much truth in it. Whatever the anatomical substrate may be, it seems quite unlikely that it would have become a *language* capability -- in the everyday sense of "language" -- unless we were social animals of just the kind we are.
But... can't help wondering ... are we actually more "highly social" than any number of other critters? Honeybees? Prairie dogs? Elephants?
Whatever has caused the difference between our languages and theirs, it's hard to make a case that the *degree* of sociableness is at the bottom of it. Maybe the *type* of sociableness.
Is there a typology of sociableness? There ought to be.
--
Michael Smith mjs at smithbowen.net http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org