Lars:
> In today's Le Monde (August 17) there are some
> articles about protolanguage and the "gene of
> speech".
Hello Lars.
Honestly, that's immediately paradoxical. A language
requires at least two individuals to speak it but,
how do you get two individuals to understand a
'language' that is quite obviously nothing more than
strings of random sounds in the most fundamental
sense? Sounds simply have no inherent meaning on
their own. They are _given_ meaning by its speakers.
So genetics are irrelevant.
I've seen no better explanation so far of the origin
of "language" than what I concluded years ago.
By "language", we tend to mean "vocal communication"
using developed human vocal chords. This is a very
limiting definition of "language" and would quite
rightly disgruntle many in the global signing
community who consider their languages to be just as
valid as a means of communication as speech. In fact,
they _are_.
To add, investigations into the differences between
sign and speech have shown many similarities and
parallels. So...
Doesn't it make sense that, at the same time as
humans were beginning to walk, they started to use
their free hands for communication? Who needs
developed vocal chords to have a language? Koko the
gorilla didn't. You remember Koko, don't you? All
you need is a better-than-the-average-ape brain and
a pair of expressive hands!
There. The mystery of how language can evolve
*without* the need for a major "genetic explosion"
is hereby solved. Please, no more "language gene"
or "lost Noah's Ark" crap!
Ptooey :P
= gLeN
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com