Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Science and Speech in Determining "Human" Kind
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 241 of 268 (428039)
10-14-2007 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by bernerbits
10-12-2007 11:24 AM


Re: Speech and communication
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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by bernerbits, posted 10-12-2007 11:24 AM bernerbits has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by bernerbits, posted 10-14-2007 10:25 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
bernerbits
Member (Idle past 5945 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 10-09-2007


Message 242 of 268 (428041)
10-14-2007 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by Quetzal
10-14-2007 9:52 AM


Re: Speech and communication
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Quetzal, posted 10-14-2007 9:52 AM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by IamJoseph, posted 10-15-2007 3:37 AM bernerbits has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 243 of 268 (428085)
10-14-2007 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by IamJoseph
10-14-2007 12:07 AM


Re: definitions
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by IamJoseph, posted 10-14-2007 12:07 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by IamJoseph, posted 10-15-2007 3:29 AM Modulous has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 244 of 268 (428167)
10-15-2007 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Modulous
10-14-2007 3:03 PM


Re: definitions
quote:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Modulous, posted 10-14-2007 3:03 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Modulous, posted 10-15-2007 3:50 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 245 of 268 (428168)
10-15-2007 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by bernerbits
10-14-2007 10:25 AM


Re: Speech and communication
quote:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by bernerbits, posted 10-14-2007 10:25 AM bernerbits has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by bernerbits, posted 10-15-2007 8:16 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 246 of 268 (428170)
10-15-2007 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by IamJoseph
10-15-2007 3:29 AM


Re: definitions
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by IamJoseph, posted 10-15-2007 3:29 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by IamJoseph, posted 10-15-2007 3:57 AM Modulous has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 247 of 268 (428171)
10-15-2007 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by bernerbits
10-14-2007 9:50 AM


Re: Troll!
quote:
I will grant you that there are many problems in various disciplines of linguistics that are just an absolute pain in the ass to describe adequately and as such are still the subject of active research and study just because natural language is so complex.
That does not, however, make language or "speech" a thorn in the side of the theory of evolution.
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:
Nor has it prevented many professional linguists from disciplined study and observation of human language, something that I daresay might be impossible if it's not a function of mind.
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:
Nor does it mean linguistics hasn't made leaps and bounds in pinning down certain aspects of human language.
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:
Nor does it explain why the aspect of "speech" that is uniquely human is something transcendent of natural language 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by bernerbits, posted 10-14-2007 9:50 AM bernerbits has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by bernerbits, posted 10-15-2007 8:42 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 248 of 268 (428172)
10-15-2007 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Modulous
10-15-2007 3:50 AM


Re: definitions
It is not 'my' position, nor is your definition 'any' position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Modulous, posted 10-15-2007 3:50 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Modulous, posted 10-15-2007 4:50 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 249 of 268 (428174)
10-15-2007 4:19 AM


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:
Skull canals spark speech-origins dispute - scientists disagree ability of Neandertals and other prehistorics spoke as humans do today -
Science News, Feb 20, 1999 by B. Bower
http://findarticles.com/...les/mi_m1200/is_8_155/ai_54062577
Fossil indications of whether Neandertals and other prehistoric populations were capable of talking have proven scarce and subject to conflicting interpretations. The hypoglossal canals, a pair of bony tubes located on the left and right sides of the skull's base, were nominated just last year as skeletal signposts of speech.
These cranial passages carry branches of a nerve that activates all but one of the tongue's muscles. However, they bear no telltale traces of an individual's anatomical readiness to speak, according to a new study.
The findings challenge a proposal that relatively large hypoglossal canals in the skulls of human ancestors who lived about 400,000 years ago reflect their ability to talk much like people do today (SN: 5/2/98, p. 276). In that report, Richard F. Kay of Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C., and his coworkers asserted that hypoglossal canal size relative to mouth size averages about twice as large in humans, Neandertals, and some early Homo species as in chimpanzees.
Growth of the hypoglossal canals in the human lineage may have accompanied a thickening of the hypoglossal nerve to coordinate tongue movements needed for speaking, Kay's group theorized.
David DeGusta of the University of California, Berkeley and his colleagues disagree. Many prosimian, monkey, and ape species have hypoglossal-canal-mouth ratios that reach or exceed the modern human range, DeGusta's team reports in the Feb. 16 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Hypoglossal-canal-mouth ratios in skulls from two early species in the human evolutionary family, neither of which is thought by anthropologists to have spoken, also fall within the modern human range, the scientists say.
"I think it's pretty clear that hypoglossal canal size has nothing to do with speech," DeGusta says. "The date of origin for human language and the speech capabilities of Neandertals remain open questions."
DeGusta and his team measured the hypoglossal-canal-mouth ratios from skulls of 104 modern humans, 75 nonhuman primates from more than 30 species, and 4 pre-human australopithecines from species dating to 3.2 million years ago. Dissections of five modern human cadavers also yielded no indication that larger hypoglossal canals carry thicker hypoglossal nerves.
The new report provides interesting data on variability in hypoglossal-canal-mouth ratios within species but leaves unexplained the canal's larger average relative size in humans and Neandertals compared with chimps, asserts Kay.
Ranges of hypoglossal canal size vary so much that comparisons of average ratios can offer little insight, DeGusta responds. For instance, he says, some chimps have hypoglossal canals that are proportionately three times as large as those of some modern humans, although only the people speak their minds.
COPYRIGHT 1999 Science Service, Inc.

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 250 of 268 (428176)
10-15-2007 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by IamJoseph
10-15-2007 3:57 AM


Re: definitions
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by IamJoseph, posted 10-15-2007 3:57 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 251 of 268 (428178)
10-15-2007 4:53 AM


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:
Skull canals spark speech-origins dispute - scientists disagree ability of Neandertals and other prehistorics spoke as humans do today -
Science News, Feb 20, 1999 by B. Bower
http://findarticles.com/...les/mi_m1200/is_8_155/ai_54062577
Fossil indications of whether Neandertals and other prehistoric populations were capable of talking have proven scarce and subject to conflicting interpretations. The hypoglossal canals, a pair of bony tubes located on the left and right sides of the skull's base, were nominated just last year as skeletal signposts of speech.
These cranial passages carry branches of a nerve that activates all but one of the tongue's muscles. However, they bear no telltale traces of an individual's anatomical readiness to speak, according to a new study.
The findings challenge a proposal that relatively large hypoglossal canals in the skulls of human ancestors who lived about 400,000 years ago reflect their ability to talk much like people do today (SN: 5/2/98, p. 276). In that report, Richard F. Kay of Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C., and his coworkers asserted that hypoglossal canal size relative to mouth size averages about twice as large in humans, Neandertals, and some early Homo species as in chimpanzees.
Growth of the hypoglossal canals in the human lineage may have accompanied a thickening of the hypoglossal nerve to coordinate tongue movements needed for speaking, Kay's group theorized.
David DeGusta of the University of California, Berkeley and his colleagues disagree. Many prosimian, monkey, and ape species have hypoglossal-canal-mouth ratios that reach or exceed the modern human range, DeGusta's team reports in the Feb. 16 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Hypoglossal-canal-mouth ratios in skulls from two early species in the human evolutionary family, neither of which is thought by anthropologists to have spoken, also fall within the modern human range, the scientists say.
"I think it's pretty clear that hypoglossal canal size has nothing to do with speech," DeGusta says. "The date of origin for human language and the speech capabilities of Neandertals remain open questions."
DeGusta and his team measured the hypoglossal-canal-mouth ratios from skulls of 104 modern humans, 75 nonhuman primates from more than 30 species, and 4 pre-human australopithecines from species dating to 3.2 million years ago. Dissections of five modern human cadavers also yielded no indication that larger hypoglossal canals carry thicker hypoglossal nerves.
The new report provides interesting data on variability in hypoglossal-canal-mouth ratios within species but leaves unexplained the canal's larger average relative size in humans and Neandertals compared with chimps, asserts Kay.
Ranges of hypoglossal canal size vary so much that comparisons of average ratios can offer little insight, DeGusta responds. For instance, he says, some chimps have hypoglossal canals that are proportionately three times as large as those of some modern humans, although only the people speak their minds.
COPYRIGHT 1999 Science Service, Inc.

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by anglagard, posted 10-15-2007 5:02 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 254 by bernerbits, posted 10-15-2007 8:24 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 252 of 268 (428179)
10-15-2007 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by IamJoseph
10-15-2007 4:53 AM


Repost
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by IamJoseph, posted 10-15-2007 4:53 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
bernerbits
Member (Idle past 5945 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 10-09-2007


Message 253 of 268 (428192)
10-15-2007 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by IamJoseph
10-15-2007 3:37 AM


Re: Speech and communication
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by IamJoseph, posted 10-15-2007 3:37 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by IamJoseph, posted 10-15-2007 8:54 AM bernerbits has replied

  
bernerbits
Member (Idle past 5945 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 10-09-2007


Message 254 of 268 (428193)
10-15-2007 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by IamJoseph
10-15-2007 4:53 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by IamJoseph, posted 10-15-2007 4:53 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by IamJoseph, posted 10-15-2007 9:03 AM bernerbits has replied

  
bernerbits
Member (Idle past 5945 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 10-09-2007


Message 255 of 268 (428198)
10-15-2007 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by IamJoseph
10-15-2007 3:54 AM


Re: Troll!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by IamJoseph, posted 10-15-2007 3:54 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024