One things that has divided me from some philosophers of language is in terms of how expansive language ought be considered. Most writers (say Davidson) limit discussion to language "normally conceived." (My phrase) However to me the line between general sign and language is at best a blurry one and thus best seen as matters of degree. After all sign-language is fully a language. While perhaps it was originally dependent upon spoken words clearly it has evolved past that. While we can talk about gestures, body language and so forth they are typically conceived of as a kind of context or perhaps "style" for language. So they are more on par with say how loudly we speak. There's an interesting New Scientist article though that suggests that our view of language is perhaps inverted. The way bonobos and chimps communicate suggests that language evolved from gestures and not vocalization. Of course this doesn't necessarily invalidate the typical view of gestures. But I think it raises some interesting issues.
The New Scientist article starts out with a conundrum from Rousseau.
"Words would seem to have been necessary to establish the use of words." Philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau pithily summed up the paradox underlying the evolution of language some three centuries ago. So, how did words arise without the words to explain them?
Now I'll admit that my view of all this arises largely out of my reading of Peirce and Derrida. Derrida argues that we ought talk about a kind of arche-writing rather than privileging speech the way we do. Peirce talks about signs and their law-like function rather than limiting oneself to speech. So I'm already biased in all this. The idea is that of a kind of sign that becomes law-like within a given context. Now read New Scientist.
"Gestures appear first in human development, before speech, and babies can learn to use them to communicate faster." As signals, gestures are evolutionarily more recent than vocalisations and facial expressions - apes use them, but monkeys don't.
If this gestural hypothesis of how language evolved is correct, then like words, the meaning of a gesture should depend on the context in which it is used, and on what other signals are being given at the same time.
Scientists studied 31 gestures and 18 facial expressions and then compared them in various contexts.
Of course one has to be somewhat careful. These aren't wild animals being tested so there is the possibility of "human contamination" due to imitation. Also, as is ever the case, theories about evolutionary psychology - especially of language - often involve a fair bit of speculation. Theories on the evolution of language have been around for a long time. As the article notes one popular theory is a mutation in the FOXP2. (I have a few papers around here somewhere on this I ought track down) This gene only varies slightly between humans and chimps. It affects "fine motor control and language comprehension." Some think that while this may have affected our ability to speak it doesn't affect our ability to use language. And I think the argument about gestures may end up being that argument. After all if one developed the ability to use gestures in an abstract fashion one could do this independent of speech. A mutation that allowed better vocal control would allow voice to be used to replace gestures - especially if hands were being used for other purposes. (As the article also notes)
I read a fascinating book a few years ago written by a deaf interpreter. She encountered a deaf man who had no language at all. He was born to a very poor family in Mexico and was never taught sign language. The book is called A MAN WITHOUT WORDS, By Susan Schaller. I found this review of it here:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CEFDD123BF930A35751C0A967958260
When she realized he was an adult who had never learned any language at all, she tried to do research and contacted many in academia about it. They refused to believe her. They said it just wasn't possible for people these days to reach adulthood with no language at all. A few years later she goes back to visit him and he takes her to a place where a group of adult deaf immigrants gather, all of them without language. It was fascinating.
That's really interesting. I'm surprised no one takes note of that since linguists are typically extremely interested in people who developed without language. I know several are studying that Russian kid who was raised by dogs from around 2 - 5.
Contrary to the Tarzan myth if you don't learn a language your brain ends up wired quite differently and you can't really learn a language. Even people like the Russian kid who are saved in time still have pretty profound language difficulties.
This woman's experience is the opposite---this man was able to learn language after being without it for ~25 years. Which is why the experts didn't believe her (if I remember correctly, been awhile since I read it).
I'm wondering if it's being without human contact at all that makes the difference.
Probably the nature of the contact. One famous case of a "languageless" person was a woman locked in a closet for 25 years or so in California by abusive parents. She was studied quite a bit.
I suspect in this case even though the person wasn't taught sign language he was around language enough that he understood a lot and the brain developed accordingly.
One interesting thing about the group of people she finds who have no language is that they get together and tell stories through miming. But they don't repeat the same gestures to mean the same thing---they're not creating their own sign language, with symbols that they reuse to always mean the same thing. Relates to what you say in your post about the evolution of language starting with gestures.
If anything, I'm surprised this is surprising based on two personal observations: (1) in trying to communicate with someone who doesn't speak a language I know, I quickly resort to hand gestures rather than sounds, and (2) before our son ever said much, he would simply point to what he wanted. I guess the crucial point is that the leap from pointing to more abstract communication isn't obviously gestures or spoken language, and except for the recent trend in teaching kids sign language, it was probably more common to see kids speaking without learning any complex gestures. Interesting stuff....
Clark: And I think the argument about gestures may end up being that argument. After all if one developed the ability to use gestures in an abstract fashion one could do this independent of speech. A mutation that allowed better vocal control would allow voice to be used to replace gestures - especially if hands were being used for other purposes. (As the article also notes)
Where I would disagree is with the idea that language replaced gestures. Since we still use gestures along with language, it would seem language didn’t so much replace gesture as developed in conjunction with gestures. If this is the case, then gestures probably was not the precursor for language.
Your description seems to approach language as a closed system. Which I don’t think it is. It has been said that 60% of our face-to-face communication is non-verbal. It would seem that language was never meant to be used by itself. Along with our verbal expressions we have inflections, body language, and gestures. Therefore, it would seem that language arouse as simply one part of the tools used in face-to-face human communication. To separate the verbal aspect of human communication is to distort how human communication developed.
Rich
Well I actually agree. One complaint I have with much philosophy of language is how it limits language to propositions and their uses. I think gestures make this problematic. But that's the typical position. (Interestingly I was thinking of a post about Heidegger and Davidson on this point)
So when folks say language replaced gestures I think they mean that the proposition developed and that became prime. Thus non-verbal communication (i.e. facial expressions) becomes seen as tone or style to the verbal. That is a secondary feature.
But, like you, I find this implausible.
It seems to me that Rich is right, that gestures are still very much a part of language. In my own work providing language materials to teachers, I see some efforts to include non-verbal communication in the teaching of language, along with the movement to teach culture and language together, since separating them doesn't provide as good an outcome.
I have to contend that the problem here is really with a definition of language that restricts it to verbal communication. Aren't we really talking about communication? So any tool used to communicate might be considered a language or part of a language. Language teaching already distinguishes between verbal and written language, and I've even seen dictionaries of "gestural language."
From this perspective, Susan's example of the "languageless" man seems improbable -- not because such a person is improbable, but because, she reports, he "takes her to a place where a group of adult deaf immigrants gather, all of them without language." What would be the point of gathering if no communication occurred? And if communication occurred, a "language" of some kind (if not written, verbal or gestural then perhaps facial?) was being used. I define language here as any tool or method used to communicate.
Of course, this also means that all sorts of animals have their own "languages," which in turn requires a bit more definition and distinction between different kinds of "languages."
But despite these musings on the definition of language, what is more important to me is the idea of language as a cultural artifact. And for that reason gestures MUST be included in language. Just like any specific word, gestures carry meaning specific to a culture. In my life time we have seen the rise to cultural prominence of a number of gestures, including the peace sign, the "hey" sign popularized by the character "Fonzi" on "Happy Days" and "Hang in there." (I know, these are all fairly old -- popularized in the 60s and 70s, AFAIK).
So, I agree that gestures have to be considered part of language, along with facial expressions, non-sylabic "grunts" and "moans" and a host of other ways we communicate.
I think we do have to consider language a subset of communication. The idea of language I think is caught up in the idea of subjects, verbs, predicates and so forth. Now I tend to think that non-verbal signs can do this, but that's an other debate.
Hey Clark, check this out:
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=3222942&page=1
Clark: I think we do have to consider language a subset of communication. The idea of language I think is caught up in the idea of subjects, verbs, predicates and so forth. Now I tend to think that non-verbal signs can do this, but that's an other debate.
But then facial expression is a subset. Body language is a subset. Vocal inflection is a subset. Gesturing is a subset. These should not be viewed as separate behaviors but as bundled behaviors meant to express meaning. Speech (verbal expression of vocabulary plus syntax) is simply another behavior bundled with the rest. None of these behaviors are meant to be unbundled from the rest. They create meaning as a complete set.
Rich
Once again the issue ends up being what meaning is - that is are we to view meaning primarily or even solely as propositions.
I've closed comments in order to avoid spam since I don't check this older blog as much anymore.
and Theology
Number of unique visitors:
Blogged by Clark Goble