NationStates Jolt Archive

http://olympics.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=6267627&pageNumber=0
I find this to be both a.) an inspiring story, and b.) a gift to linguistics that proves that kids, not adults, shape languages of the future.

I think that's pretty cool...the ingenuity these children had who developed this language is quite something. :-)

A random point of curiosity. I wonder is if our first languages (that is, the human race in general) were gestural instead of spoken. I wonder what would happen if you had a similar situation of isolation with hearing children. I wonder what they would do to communicate--if they would innately devise a spoken language or if it would be at least augmented by gesture? (Which still wouldn't tell us about our MOST ancient ancestors, though.)

A random point of curiosity. I wonder is if our first languages (that is, the human race in general) were gestural instead of spoken.


IIRC Jacques Derrida has speculated that the first language was actually in the form of a written text, rathert than a verbal or a somatic one, but it is not clear how serious he is being when he does so.

I think that's pretty cool...the ingenuity these children had who developed this language is quite something. :-)

A random point of curiosity. I wonder is if our first languages (that is, the human race in general) were gestural instead of spoken. I wonder what would happen if you had a similar situation of isolation with hearing children. I wonder what they would do to communicate--if they would innately devise a spoken language or if it would be at least augmented by gesture? (Which still wouldn't tell us about our MOST ancient ancestors, though.)
I'd think it'd be a combo between gestures and simple grunts. Gorillas today can learn sign language, so it's reasonable to think that our ancestors also could. But they also must have had grunts, in the same way that dogs bark, or cats meow.

I'd think it'd be a combo between gestures and simple grunts. Gorillas today can learn sign language, so it's reasonable to think that our ancestors also could. But they also must have had grunts, in the same way that dogs bark, or cats meow.

Probably...I do imagine that we (and when I say this I mean our ancestors) would've used our voices for something, even if it wasn't speech. I highly doubt there would have been any social reason not to...although one never knows about human beings and what kinds of customs we might have had. ;-) (We're quirky enough now, and if we had conscious thought before speech, I'm sure we had all the quirks that consciousness brings.) I imagine we would have laughed and cried and used facial expressions in the same ways we do now for much longer than we would've known to speak...but my guess is that substantive information would be expected in gestures, not through sound.

Speaking of the ingenuity involved in developing communication (to go back to the thread's original subject for a bit), can you imagine what a genius that very first person who ever came up with the idea of communicating was? The first person who got the idea to create sign language, and then the first one who realized they could speak had to be brilliant. This wouldn't seem like much to us now, because we don't know what it's like not to have those concepts in our minds, but for those people, it would have been a tremendous intellectual leap that I don't think just everybody would've come up with.

Probably...I do imagine that we (and when I say this I mean our ancestors) would've used our voices for something, even if it wasn't speech. I highly doubt there would have been any social reason not to...although one never knows about human beings and what kinds of customs we might have had. ;-) (We're quirky enough now, and if we had conscious thought before speech, I'm sure we had all the quirks that consciousness brings.) I imagine we would have laughed and cried and used facial expressions in the same ways we do now for much longer than we would've known to speak...but my guess is that substantive information would be expected in gestures, not through sound.

Speaking of the ingenuity involved in developing communication (to go back to the thread's original subject for a bit), can you imagine what a genius that very first person who ever came up with the idea of communicating was? The first person who got the idea to create sign language, and then the first one who realized they could speak had to be brilliant. This wouldn't seem like much to us now, because we don't know what it's like not to have those concepts in our minds, but for those people, it would have been a tremendous intellectual leap that I don't think just everybody would've come up with.
I doubt is was a major intellectual leap, but rather a process that took centuries, if not millenia. It was only natural with the advent of humans. Humans were the first primates that built tools, showing a desire not just to live with his surroundings, like other animals, but to dominate them.

I doubt is was a major intellectual leap, but rather a process that took centuries, if not millenia. It was only natural with the advent of humans. Humans were the first primates that built tools, showing a desire not just to live with his surroundings, like other animals, but to dominate them.

It still seems that even if some things were gradual, for the very first person who came up with them, it would've been a major achievement. For a more recent example, what about the first person who realized that they could represent their surroundings by making a picture of it?

I think part of our perspective differences may depend on the way we look at evolution. While I do not claim to know which theory has more evidence to back it up, I am approaching it as something that occurred more in fits and starts than in a slow, steady progression. But even if you look at it from the more "traditional" way, which I think you are, it still seems that somebody had to think of it first. And like anything that creates a major change in society, that person has to be a real visionary, because the society around him or her is giving no indication of the possibilities.

It still seems that even if some things were gradual, for the very first person who came up with them, it would've been a major achievement. For a more recent example, what about the first person who realized that they could represent their surroundings by making a picture of it?
That, I agree, was an intellectual leap for humanity.
I think part of our perspective differences may depend on the way we look at evolution. While I do not claim to know which theory has more evidence to back it up, I am approaching it as something that occurred more in fits and starts than in a slow, steady progression. But even if you look at it from the more "traditional" way, which I think you are, it still seems that somebody had to think of it first. And like anything that creates a major change in society, that person has to be a real visionary, because the society around him or her is giving no indication of the possibilities.
I have to admit that I'm a closet creationist, in the sense that I don't think that creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive. How long is a day to God? Besides, the order that Genesis describes the creation of things fits what most evolutionists say. If you want intellects, I believe that that's what Adam and Eve were. They weren't exactly the first humans, per se, but the first of the neolithic revolution, and they, I believe, were the first intellectuals, the first of the neolithic revolution. But that's a completely different debate.
Otherwise, I do believe that evolution is gradual. Fits and starts, I believe, are merely mutations. True evolution is simply switchhing around some genes. You and I are genetically different from our parents. In a few million years, we may form our own species from so many small alterations.

That, I agree, was an intellectual leap for humanity.

So what disqualifies prior achievements in communication? I'm not trying to be rude here, I'm just trying to understand your perspective. The thing is that I am seeing the prior achievements as intellectual in origin. Perhaps some of the first gestures would've been instinct, but at some point, the intellect had to take over and begin exploring possibilities. Where is the distinction?

I have to admit that I'm a closet creationist, in the sense that I don't think that creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive. How long is a day to God? Besides, the order that Genesis describes the creation of things fits what most evolutionists say. If you want intellects, I believe that that's what Adam and Eve were. They weren't exactly the first humans, per se, but the first of the neolithic revolution, and they, I believe, were the first intellectuals, the first of the neolithic revolution. But that's a completely different debate.
Otherwise, I do believe that evolution is gradual. Fits and starts, I believe, are merely mutations. True evolution is simply switchhing around some genes. You and I are genetically different from our parents. In a few million years, we may form our own species from so many small alterations.

I feel the same, actually--that there's no reason God can't work through the scientific processes we see, and the same about who Adam and Eve were...the first to have consciousness in the way we understand it.

As for which sort of evolution is actually the correct one, I'll leave it to the scientists to debate, even though I do suspect the pace is not constant.

So what disqualifies prior achievements in communication? I'm not trying to be rude here, I'm just trying to understand your perspective. The thing is that I am seeing the prior achievements as intellectual in origin. Perhaps some of the first gestures would've been instinct, but at some point, the intellect had to take over and begin exploring possibilities. Where is the distinction?

Grunts and groans always existed. But someone needed to figure out that images could be made using symbols other than gestures, and this, I believe, was the very beginning of writing.

Grunts and groans always existed. But someone needed to figure out that images could be made using symbols other than gestures, and this, I believe, was the very beginning of writing.

But perhaps someone also had to figure out that those instinctive grunts and other sounds could be equated with specific concepts. Especially if people had already acquired language of a gestural variety, it would be quite a brainstorm for someone to be induced to try something different, something that he/she had never equated with communication before other than on the most rudimentary level (crying out when in pain and so on).

Interesting but not surprising for me.

Ever read about how some twins can create a verbal language between themselves? They eventually stop when they learn their native language.....

This is REally, Really old news.

And its not ingenious at all. But it is an insight into Human nature.

But perhaps someone also had to figure out that those instinctive grunts and other sounds could be equated with specific concepts. Especially if people had already acquired language of a gestural variety, it would be quite a brainstorm for someone to be induced to try something different, something that he/she had never equated with communication before other than on the most rudimentary level (crying out when in pain and so on).
It's possible, but if one person is speaking it, another must understand it. It is impossible for some one as smart as this hypothetical man to teach another person a language when they know of none. That's why I think it was a gradual process, where grunts slowly turned into words.

It's possible, but if one person is speaking it, another must understand it. It is impossible for some one as smart as this hypothetical man to teach another person a language when they know of none. That's why I think it was a gradual process, where grunts slowly turned into words.

Depends on if language already existed, though...part of my point has been that it's possible that sign language could've already existed prior to speech. If that were the case, the first person who figured out how to speak might well have been able to explain the connection through the existing sign language.

No one's proven which way it was, but it's interesting to speculate about it. :-)

Depends on if language already existed, though...part of my point has been that it's possible that sign language could've already existed prior to speech. If that were the case, the first person who figured out how to speak might well have been able to explain the connection through the existing sign language.

No one's proven which way it was, but it's interesting to speculate about it. :-)
It is. But whichever came first, it was obvious that humans preffered speach. There are so many more languages today than types of sign language, and only two are used by the speaking, mostly in monasteries.

It is. But whichever came first, it was obvious that humans preffered speach. There are so many more languages today than types of sign language, and only two are used by the speaking, mostly in monasteries.

It would've been a revolutionary breakthrough once they realized what they could do...it's probably a lot faster to speak (I've never timed it out precisely, but it seems that way from observation), and easier to get information across distances. Plus there's not much of a line-of-sight problem. I just think that if humankind had consciousness before speech, they would've had to have come up with some way to communicate before that, thanks to that human drive to self-expression.

BTW, I did not realize there were still monastic orders where they take a vow of silence.

I think that's pretty cool...the ingenuity these children had who developed this language is quite something. :-)

I concur.

Humans inherently learn to speak through imitation; and in this case, they are not imitating - but creating their own language, in essence, to survive - and it shows that even in dire circumstances, the will and ability to communicate is alive in all of us, regardless of disability.

I concur.

Humans inherently learn to speak through imitation; and in this case, they are not imitating - but creating their own language, in essence, to survive - and it shows that even in dire circumstances, the will and ability to communicate is alive in all of us, regardless of disability.

I read something interesting once--I forgot where, but it indicates that the very same areas of our brains that help us speak also are tied to our gestures. Meaning it's all part of one and the same thing. But to be able to harness that without any examples from others is pretty cool--and more of an accomplishment than it is for those of us who had only to imitate. :-)