|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Science and Speech in Determining "Human" Kind | |||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5899 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Hi BB,
Thanks for your reply.
Linguistics students and professionals prefer to use "natural language" to describe human communication... Okay. Is the concept of "natural language" limited to human communcation (that sounds like what you are indicating)? If so, does this actually (shudder) validate IAJ's inane argument that speech (i.e., natural language) is somehow uniquely human? If that's the case, is the concept of natural language simply a distinction-of-convenience that merely allows linguists and others of that ilk to study human communication as though it were (arbitrarily) divorced from all other forms of communication, or does it mean that linguists actually consider that there is a fundamental difference in what humans do? Inquiring minds, and all that...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
bernerbits Member (Idle past 5972 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
Is the concept of "natural language" limited to human communcation (that sounds like what you are indicating)? Well, Linguistics is variously considered a social science and and anthropological study, so for the most part the discipline says that's a matter for the biologists. Linguistics itself tends to concern itself with language as used by humans, though that doesn't divorce the field from studying cases like Koko and Alex. Linguists who study Koko and Alex will generally assert that there is a big difference between their grasp of language and the complexity and expressiveness of human languages.
If so, does this actually (shudder) validate IAJ's inane argument that speech (i.e., natural language) is somehow uniquely human? Gotta be careful with this one. You could draw a parallel between this and wings and say that wings are a uniquely avian characteristic, while discounting bats and flying squirrels and human-built aircraft by saying that those aren't truly wings despite providing some form of flight, because wings are uniquely avian. The degree of complexity and expressiveness of human language does exceed any form of language that other animals seem to have or be able to learn. Joseph's cardinal non-sequitur, however, is claiming this observation checkmates any possibility that it could have occurred via mutation and natural selection and he has consistently failed to show why this is the case.
If that's the case, is the concept of natural language simply a distinction-of-convenience Again, linguistics is largely an anthropological discipline with roots in history, sociology, biology, psychology, etc. As such it tends to limit itself to human language for the most part but there are certainly disciplines within linguistics that are interested in non-human communication and how it relates to human communication.
or does it mean that linguists actually consider that there is a fundamental difference in what humans do? Depends on the linguist To be sure, a "fundamental difference" isn't all that scary. Wings and legs are fundamentally different from one another but they certainly have a common predecessor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Your problem is the assumption no one remembered to click a search button. I am sure all the scientists quoted have read such 'descriptions' [as opposed definitions]. It was inevitably biologists that supplied the information used by lexicographers to compile the definitions - I made no assumption to the contrary.
Your other problem is, you have negated your own held premise: all the attributes listed therein [throat, tongue, lips, etc - modulation, cavities and throat muscles, etc] are commonplace with life forms, contradicting the unique human speech factor. That's not my premise - the unique human speech factor is your premise. I have no qualms with definitions that harm your argument. Especially given that you have been unable to construct a definition that doesn't harm your argument that is not pointlessly tautological.
But you ARE affirming my premise by default. By quoting definitions that undermine your assertion that human speech is a 'unique factor', I have affirmed your premise by default? Your logic is at least interesting, if completely backwards.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3695 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: The problem is related to the factors mentioned in your definition: they subscribe to commonalities in all life forms, without defining any differences. There is no accounting for speech not seen in lions therein.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3695 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: What defines a difference in kind than degree? What's the odds ratio here: all against one - and how many life forms are there with their own form of communication systems - and one with speech? Compound the above with other impacting factors: No speech in any life forms - despite the evolutionary based advantage of time, NS, Adaptation and all other biological traits one can muster. Add to this that other life forms are far more audio/phonetically dexterous than humans, and that their survival more depends on a screech than humans with speech. Its not a difference in degree but in kind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
The problem is related to the factors mentioned in your definition: they subscribe to commonalities in all life forms, without defining any differences. There is no accounting for speech not seen in lions therein.
Yes, you said that the first time. I replied to it. It is a problem for your position, but not to mine. You are unable to find a definition that supports your position. You think that this is indicative for how special and wonderful speech is. I think it is because your position is wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3695 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Depends what comes out of further findings. If speech is seen as a recent phenomenon, emerging fully developed - it does impact on ToE in its bypassing the core premise of evolution. 'SHUDDER' is an appropriate potential here.
quote: That's just it - the scientific study is what I depend on too - combined with historical factual stats and evidences. The 'mind' is common to all life forms, and does not appear the operative factor here.
quote: I will rest my case on their results - provided it does not bypass reality for the academic solely. Thus far, linguistics is more confused than before with speech, but let's wait their findings: currently, it is inclined with the premise speech is not an extension of communication by degree.
quote: Language is an outgrowth of speech - it is basically 'speeching', my improvising of such a term. There is no speech or language where there is only communication traits.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3695 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
It is not 'my' position, nor is your definition 'any' position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3695 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Linguistics are in confusion, as to the latest findings. This says again, speech was never a privy of any life form, namely pointing to it not being a developed evolutionary grad:
quote: |
|||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Sorry, I thought your position was that biologists thought that speech is a problem in defining speech and I thought my position was that biologists have no problem in defining speech and that it is you who have a problem with their definitons.
My mistake, thanks for the definitive correction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3695 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Linguistics are in confusion, as to the latest findings. This says again, speech was never a privy of any life form, namely pointing to it not being a developed evolutionary grad:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 863 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
I think it is bad enough that you repost the same arguments, but do you have to literally repost the same post?
Edited by anglagard, : No reason given. Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
|
|||||||||||||||||||
bernerbits Member (Idle past 5972 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
Its not a difference in degree but in kind.
No speech in any life forms
Just repeating a claim doesn't make it truer. You haven't yet substantiated either of these.
Add to this that other life forms are far more audio/phonetically dexterous than humans, and that their survival more depends on a screech than humans with speech. Parrots are far better at mimicking sounds than humans. It's easy to imagine how this is beneficial both for predation and defense. But if their brains evolved to the complexity necessary to process language on the same level humans do, they would no longer be able to fly due to the disproportionate size of their heads. It would be more burdensome than beneficial. There has to be a net benefit with respect to the environment for natural selection to favor a mutation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
bernerbits Member (Idle past 5972 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
Ahem. So what? So scientists dispute the origin of language as used by humans. It's an open question.
Where in the paper do the scientists/linguists say, "Well geez. This is just embarrassing. This means the whole theory is evolution is wrong. We've been spinning our wheels for the last 200 years. We really feel just awful about all this. Sorry to confuse everybody."? Like it or not, mere open questions are not the silver bullet that kills evolution for which you so earnestly hope. Computer scientists still don't know whether P=NP or not, but surprise, computers still work.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
bernerbits Member (Idle past 5972 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
If speech is seen as a recent phenomenon, emerging fully developed - it does impact on ToE in its bypassing the core premise of evolution. Nah. Even discovering beyond all rational doubt that everything just exploded onto the scene in 6 days would simply solve abiogenesis for us and would win the Nobel Prize for the discoverer. But thus far no evidence exists to support this. I don't think scientists or linguists will ever discover beyond all reasonable doubt the exact origins of human speech. Written language is almost certainly much more recent than spoken language, and humans are known to adopt beneficial tools extremely rapidly, so that can easily be used to infer why it looks like written language just popped into existence relatively quickly... because it probably did. It's far harder, perhaps impossible, to trace the origins of spoken language because sound rarely leaves any evidence. All we have to go on is the shape and size of some bones (which is more telling than you might think, but not so much as to be conclusive).
The 'mind' is common to all life forms, and does not appear the operative factor here. Then please explain why certain types of brain damage cause a human to lose the ability to speak.
Thus far, linguistics is more confused than before with speech, but let's wait their findings Oh no, linguistics knows what it knows. It also knows what it doesn't know. It's not "confused" as you claim.
Language is an outgrowth of speech - it is basically 'speeching', my improvising of such a term. There is no speech or language where there is only communication traits. You're inventing words now? It doesn't make a word mean something if you put a suffix on it. Coarsely, language is a carrier for thoughts and concepts, and speech is a mechanism by which it is delivered. If animals are devoid of speech, then speech is NOT meaningless grunts and hisses, because animals can do this. It is something else, but you've failed to identify what.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024