Sounds Then Speech Then Language.

[pljames]

I can imagine grunts and sounds for cavemen and such, but evolving into langauge baffles me. I believe in creation over evolution. I am not attacking any ones beliefs. I can see to a point where evolution might have a impact somewhere. I cannot see grunts and simular sounds as pre-evolution or even animals. Each species has it's own personal nature! Can someone show me how the animals went from there nature of communicating to other animals and then might have evolved into speech. Then how man did the same. Paul

[Turtle]

I can imagine grunts and sounds for cavemen and such, but evolving into langauge baffles me. I believe in creation over evolution. I am not attacking any ones beliefs. I can see to a point where evolution might have a impact somewhere. I cannot see grunts and simular sounds as pre-evolution or even animals. Each species has it's own personal nature! Can someone show me how the animals went from there nature of communicating to other animals and then might have evolved into speech. Then how man did the same. Paul

Paul,

 

Nothing is served scientifically by your starting this thread as you have. Did you do any research on the subject of language acquisition or evolution before posting? This thread strikes me as nothing more than trolling and/or proselytizing. Please substantiate this thread.

[pljames]

Paul,

 

Nothing is served scientifically by your starting this thread as you have. Did you do any research on the subject of language acquisition or evolution before posting? This thread strikes me as nothing more than trolling and/or proselytizing. Please substantiate this thread.

There is no proof just theory which comes under science. I do not troll or proselytize, Why can't I ask a question to get a idea on the theories? Paul

[sman]

I do not troll or proselytize,

Ok. Then you needn't mention that you decry the science you're asking us about in favor of your personal belief in magic. Does that help you understand Turtle's point?

 

 

Why can't I ask a question to get a idea on the theories? Paul

You can, but if you researched these things a bit first, and then asked for guidance on what you've learned - maybe linked us to what you've read - you should get more responses than simply asking us to do all the work.

[Turtle]

There is no proof just theory which comes under science. ...

Paul

A scientific theory is not some unsupported wild guess as you imply.

 

...theory (thē′ə-rē, thîr′ē)

 

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. See Note at hypothesis. ...

reference: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theory

 

Creationism on the other hand is an unsupported wild guess.

 

Creationism is the religious belief that life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being. ...

reference: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/creationism

[RainMan]

Well, I for one think it's an interesting topic and I don't believe he wants us to do his homework for him. (If he does, I hope he gets an "F".)

 

Picture a caveman looking at 10 different animals. He has 10 different visuals so it's natural to assume he will have 10 different "grunts" associated with each visual. Cavemen were human so they too had an inborn desire to learn and evolve. This desire led to a refinement of the "grunts" so they were easier to understand as the caveman started to see more and more animals. There's a lot out there. How the does the old saying go?.......Necessity is the mother of invention?

 

Anyway, that's my theory. Feel free to expound on it or throw it in the trash bin. 

[sman]

Anyway, that's my theory. Feel free to expound on it or throw it in the trash bin.

Of course, you’re using the word "theory" loosely to mean unsupported wild guess, not the above-referenced Scientific Theory. Yours is the common usage of the word but – call me a stickler – on a science forum I think it’s important to draw that line clearly.

 

I think it’s an interesting topic myself, and have been fortunate enough to be involved (even as more-or-less a spectator) in discussions about it here at hypography.

 

My own unsupported-wild-guess on the matter is that a variety of disparate organs and neurological devices that had been evolving for a long time according to different purposes were exapted for language and the benefit that it incurred on social primates, probably at the advent of a specific mutation for recursion of thoughts and an hierarchical arrangement of mental categories – possibly just one gene – which I correlate (from my armchair, of course) with the origin of art/abstract representations, or what some now call The Great Leap Forward in human pre-history.

 

So, in short, I disagree with you that it evolved gradually.  All's fair in love, war and prehistoric linguistics.

[pagetheoracle]

Sound attracts attention.  Did Man start off grunting and groaning?  We have no proof of that.  What we do have proof of is that language breaks down into vowels and consonants and that these sounds, over time, became combined into various chunks we call words, just as some people can read Morse code that is combined of dashes, dots and gaps (punctuation).  Without gaps or punctuation words would just be gabbled noise.  There has to be order and understanding to make sense of any communication but we must remember emotion was the original language and that was just noises to draw attention to yourself or something you wanted others in your community to see (same with written language which followed on from spoken sounds).  Everything evolves and that includes language but language is always of the past, through mutual association as new experiences have no common reference point across the community, therefore experience goes back to basic language (noise / emotion (tone of voice) / semaphore (body language).

 

Hope this is as clear as the mud we crawled out of!

 

More at http://www.pinterest.com/paigetheoracle/logic-lists-english/

[Plautus]

Language is complex. Simple rules can create enormous complexity. See fractals or Conway's game of life for practical examples. Simple rules in the human mind produce complex language. Memory allows for deliberate meddling with the language, so that plays a part as well. Read what Chomsky had to say about language.

[pagetheoracle]

Plautus, it is complex but like everything else it started off simple (Geological records and the growth of life on this planet for instance, from simple single celled organisms, which of course is also true of the body). The complexity is in part from the fact that there are exceptions to the rules and that in the case of English, a lot of input from various other languages. What I've tried to do with my approach is exclude the exceptions, except where they do follow some kind of followable pattern, even if small in number. What it has disclosed, even to me, is where some of these obvious foreign intrusions lie. For instance verbs which have a regular form plus irregular verbs, which are mainly Anglo-Saxon I believe and that can also be arranged to show regularity of various forms (same format whether in past, present or future; different in particular tenses but not all; regular change throughout usage etc). -id ending which is mostly Latin. Regular form for -ess/ion/ive, through half a dozen words etc with other word groups. Somebody asked what use all these laying out of words in this columned way is but as I said to him 'Maybe that has yet to be revealed.'

[Plautus]

Plautus, it is complex but like everything else it started off simple (Geological records and the growth of life on this planet for instance, from simple single celled organisms, which of course is also true of the body). The complexity is in part from the fact that there are exceptions to the rules and that in the case of English, a lot of input from various other languages. What I've tried to do with my approach is exclude the exceptions, except where they do follow some kind of followable pattern, even if small in number. What it has disclosed, even to me, is where some of these obvious foreign intrusions lie. For instance verbs which have a regular form plus irregular verbs, which are mainly Anglo-Saxon I believe and that can also be arranged to show regularity of various forms (same format whether in past, present or future; different in particular tenses but not all; regular change throughout usage etc). -id ending which is mostly Latin. Regular form for -ess/ion/ive, through half a dozen words etc with other word groups. Somebody asked what use all these laying out of words in this columned way is but as I said to him 'Maybe that has yet to be revealed.'

Hyperbole

[Buffy]

Language is complex. Simple rules can create enormous complexity. See fractals or Conway's game of life for practical examples. Simple rules in the human mind produce complex language. Memory allows for deliberate meddling with the language, so that plays a part as well. Read what Chomsky had to say about language.

You're way off topic here: This thread is discussing how language formed, which is an interesting topic. No one here is arguing that language is simple, even if it's got simple rules. And actually Chomsky's work is a great example of how the rules are not as simple as they look, but if you want to discuss that, start a new thread.

 

 

Language is a weapon of politicians, but language is a weapon in much of human affairs, :phones:

Buffy

[arissa]

Language is complex, and sometimes simple at the same time. I also find the topic interesting but I am a little concerned here about attacking a new member who wanted to bring something to the boards here. I know I would feel a little put off if that happened to me. As to the topic though, this is an interesting piece that was sent to me by a friend the other day as over the past weekend holiday we had this subject come up during our barbecue.

[Buffy]

Since like many evolutionary adaptations, language obviously sprang out of other adaptations that were not designed for it's use: lungs for breathing, tongues for sensing taste and aiding digestion of food. That indeed is something that makes the beginning of language a little complicated, but the origin of language itself certainly started off in a far simpler form than we see today, adding complexity as it was adapted to new uses. It is indeed true that initial few steps where adding some simple rules to create a lot of complexity where much of the interesting evolution has occurred.

 

So as a moderation note, that idea can certainly contribute to this particular discussion but it's helpful to all if it's framed as part of that discussion, and while we do actually guide new members (which this member actually was not) more softly, there are issues that are not apparent in this thread or elsewhere as to why this situation resolved itself in the way it did. So rest assured that there's actually a lot of tolerance for leeway here, but in general threads are a lot more enjoyable for everyone if there's a little direction back to the original topic.

 

Carry on!

 

 

The advantage of the emotions is that they lead us astray, and the advantage of science is that it is not emotional, :phones:

Buffy

[ErlyRisa]

Its so fricken simple, it actually hurts to talk about it: Evolution , Language , Tools. ;and its the simplicity of it that makes you wonder, why it is so simple to begin with, and why most everybody else is stupid.

[pagetheoracle]

Well Erly, to quote myself "The stupid complicate things to 'appear' clever and the intelligent simplify things to 'be' clever."

 

[ErlyRisa]

Well Erly, to quote myself "The stupid complicate things to 'appear' clever and the intelligent simplify things to 'be' clever."

I compare that too... the intelligent know how to make a profit, while the stupid that know are stupid enough to make statement that the intelligent usually take years to procure in order too appear intelligent. Like for example, the point to being an artist in todays day and age when computer programmers that are more than intellignet and create software that makes it so that an artist can create are giving the tooling away for free while the artist is actually requiring payment for something they could have done with traditional tools? If you ask me now we are ALL STRUGGLING...thankyou our parents have been VERY VERY intelligent too make it so that the kiddies can learn too draw. Could mummy and daddy please pay for my drawing? - no.

 

Discussing topics over and over again, is what the inteligent do in order to occupy time, the ultra intelligent find a way to get paid for being headcases. This is evolution, this is where caveman organised in a manner where a couple of "linguists" wrote for the entire population, and sat back and where fed. That's intelligence, being able too keep a population unto yourself for your own benefit (eg. Hunger Games)

Edited July 14, 2014 by ErlyRisa