Odd linguistics argument

[Piscivore]

So going back to the OP. I don't have time to read the entire linked thread, but is the basic contention that people with a substantially different language experience the world differently? Or what?

That's pretty much "jms"' contention.

 

[Phaycops]

That's the claim. It's formally known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, after its two major proponents in the 1930s.

Unfortunately for the OP (and for Drs. Sapir and Whorf), it's a lovely hypothesis with no empirical support -- and quite a bit of empirical refutation.

Based on what I've read here, it seems to be related to the "Noble Savage" sorts of myths. Like, oh, the Hopi experience time as a great and loving ocean of, I dunno, truth, or whatever, and us Americans are so locked in our empirical straight-line ways that we have lost the connection to the deeper blah blah blah.

Anyway. Yellow is yellow even if it's bannana red.

This might sound stupid, but don't these kinds of data sort of refute the whole po-mo concept of a lack of external reality? That is to say, it seems like if reality were socially constructed, wouldn't we expect to see people with fewer color words being less able to distinguish colors? And since that's what we don't see, then can we make some inferences that some aspects of reality are, er, really real? I am not too up on (or interested in, for that matter), philosophy, really. Just asking.

 

[drkitten]

Based on what I've read here, it seems to be related to the "Noble Savage" sorts of myths.

Whether it's directly related or not, it's certainly been coopted by the people selling those myths.

This might sound stupid, but don't these kinds of data sort of refute the whole po-mo concept of a lack of external reality? That is to say, it seems like if reality were socially constructed, wouldn't we expect to see people with fewer color words being less able to distinguish colors? And since that's what we don't see, then can we make some inferences that some aspects of reality are, er, really real? I am not too up on (or interested in, for that matter), philosophy, really. Just asking.

That's certainly an argument that many people -- myself included -- have made against postmodernism. Of course, being able to spot an error in a "philosophy" that is essentially a writhing, twisting, mass of errors is not exactly the mark of a particularly incisive mind. (More like standing on the deck of a cruise ship and saying "I spy, with my little eye, something that is wet.")

 

[Phaycops]

Of course, being able to spot an error in a "philosophy" that is essentially a writhing, twisting, mass of errors is not exactly the mark of a particularly incisive mind. (More like standing on the deck of a cruise ship and saying "I spy, with my little eye, something that is wet.")

:shrug: Just asking. You don't need to insult my intelligence. I already said I don't really care about philosophy anyway...

 

[Piscivore]

Is it?

Why does red get a name before green -- and why does yellow get a name before blue?

I don't see any particular environmental reason why that would be the case. Perhaps I lack imagination.

Red is frequently used in nature in visceral communication (there's probably a proper word here I don't know) that has many varying and quite different "meanings." It is used to signal danger and to attract. Our ancestors would need a word to distinguish the property this "bad thing" and this "good thing" have in common, wouldn't they? On top of that, red colouration is used in our own involuntary comminications- blush response, anger, etc.

Coincidentally (or not), I've noticed that "red" is almost always the property the qualia crowd uses as an example.

"Green" is so common in nature, that it would be useful- for the same reason- to identify the property independantly of the objects that posess it. Same would apply for "yellow."

Well, color-blindness is usually considered to be a cognitive limitation, since it affects the person instead of the environment. The leaves are still green, even if you can't perceive them properly.

Gotcha. But in this case, what is the difference between a "cognitive limitation" and an environmental adaptation?

But you're right that Morlock populations might well develop odd languages --but at this point, we're also talking about a degree of evolution that makes the Morlocks no longer human as we understand the term, which would also permit -- I'd argue, require -- a degree of modification to the brain/mind architecture as well as the visual pathway.

Yeah, I kinda realised that as I was posting it. My first example was going to be deep-water gilled homonids, which obviously wouldn't be "human" either.

 

[Piscivore]

:shrug: Just asking. You don't need to insult my intelligence. I already said I don't really care about philosophy anyway...

I don't think Dr. K was dissing you as much as he was Po-Mo, and declaiming any special glory for himself for discrediting it.

 

[drkitten]

:shrug: Just asking. You don't need to insult my intelligence. I already said I don't really care about philosophy anyway...

I'm sorry. It wasn't intended to insult your intelligence, but the intelligence of the people who came up with -- and who bought into -- the incredible line of nonsense peddled as "postmodernism."

It's quite a good insight you came up with. My point was more to illustrate just how superficial the errors in postmodernist theory are....

 

[Piscivore]

I'm sorry. It wasn't intended to insult your intelligence, but the intelligence of the people who came up with -- and who bought into -- the incredible line of nonsense peddled as "postmodernism."

Heh, thanks a lot. My very first post here was due to the fact that I was starting to buy into it...

 

[drkitten]

Red is frequently used in nature in visceral communication (there's probably a proper word here I don't know) that has many varying and quite different "meanings." It is used to signal danger and to attract. Our ancestors would need a word to distinguish the property this "bad thing" and this "good thing" have in common, wouldn't they?

Well, demonstrably not, because there are languages that don't have a word for "red" (although they are rare). And there's lots of other colors that are equally common and/or important -- for example, brown (which is the color of most of the things you hunt for food, as well as for most of the objects you make into tools), which come in very very late in the color hierarchy.

Gotcha. But in this case, what is the difference between a "cognitive limitation" and an environmental adaptation?

I tend to think that cognitive stuff is the stuff that happens inside your head, and that can't really be fixed just by putting your head in a different spot.

If I was born colorblind, moving from the Sahara to North America woudn't cure that.

 

[drkitten]

Heh, thanks a lot. My very first post here was due to the fact that I was starting to buy into it...

... and you were smart enough to recognize that you had a problem and to take steps to fix it. How does that Alchoholics Anonymous 12-step thing go?

 

[Phaycops]

I'm sorry. It wasn't intended to insult your intelligence, but the intelligence of the people who came up with -- and who bought into -- the incredible line of nonsense peddled as "postmodernism."

It's quite a good insight you came up with. My point was more to illustrate just how superficial the errors in postmodernist theory are....

'S ok -- I'm a bit thyroidy (that would be a technical term, you know) lately, so until my meds kick in, I may be a wee bit moody.

I can't believe I had to sit around and wait for like 45 minutes at the pharmacy for something that isn't even going to help me instantaneously. :mumbling: stupid modern medicine...

I did read Fashionable Nonsense, and to be honest, so much of it [ed -- the po-mo stuff] was such crap I had a hard time even understanding the baseless claims they were making! I felt a little like that reading the OP's quote and some of the linked thread -- it was such crap that I didn't understand how we got here from there...

 

[Piscivore]

Well, demonstrably not, because there are languages that don't have a word for "red" (although they are rare).

That means they only have separate words for black and white?

And there's lots of other colors that are equally common and/or important -- for example, brown (which is the color of most of the things you hunt for food, as well as for most of the objects you make into tools), which come in very very late in the color hierarchy.

And poop. It was only like #7, that's late?

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that red/green/yellow would be the colours of foods that our ancestors were eating when our visual identification systems were "coming on line," so to speak (evolving), and we wouldn't have become hard-core hunters until much later. Am I wrong in thinking that our capacity for language is an adaptation allowing us to survive in unrelated groups of gatherers and scavengers and is one of the latest adaptations we've made, and we haven't had enough generations to have evolved signifigantly since?

I tend to think that cognitive stuff is the stuff that happens inside your head, and that can't really be fixed just by putting your head in a different spot.

If I was born colorblind, moving from the Sahara to North America woudn't cure that.

Eating too many unripe Maine apples might.

But facetiousness aside, is the environment there different enough to warrant an evolutionary change drastic enough to change our basic physiology? I mean, I had to go to Morelocks to get a variety of humans different enough to require a different language structure.

I guess what I'm asking is, how do you separate what's going on in your head from what's going on outside it? I'm not sliding back into PoMo here, I'm asking the opposite, what makes anyone think there is anything to cognition but responses and adaptations to environment?

 

[Jorghnassen]

Well, demonstrably not, because there are languages that don't have a word for "red" (although they are rare). And there's lots of other colors that are equally common and/or important -- for example, brown (which is the color of most of the things you hunt for food, as well as for most of the objects you make into tools), which come in very very late in the color hierarchy.

Going on the assumption that one makes word to make distinctions between things, brown, though it's very common in nature, might not be useful to describe much. What's special about brown? Brown, not a very useful colour, it doesn't define/distinguish things enough. In that sense, it's not too hard to see how black and white would always arise first (to distinguish light and darkness), then red (ripe fruits, blood, fire and other things), then green/yellow (vegetation/seasons), then blue, and then all those not so useful colours...

/yay for quickly imagined, pseudo-scientific explanation
//but the brain does appear to exagerate deviation from the norm to define things, like remembering faces...

 

[Dogdoctor]

To start with, pre-humans typically lack the (physical) articulatory capacity necessary for human language, and as far as we can tell from the fossilized skulls, they lacked the necessary neurological development in the "typical" language areas (e.g. Broca's and Werneke's).

I assume that the evolution of humans was not a sudden thing so did the language areas develop after we were humans? If not then it doesn't sound like that is evidence of lack of language prior to the evolution of humans.

 

[drkitten]

That means they only have separate words for black and white?

Yup. Actually, if you look at the colors represented, they tend to be more like "dark" and "bright." They then use metaphors (think of Homer's "wine-dark sea") to distinguish things that are "white like banana" versus "white like bone" versus "white like melon."

And poop. It was only like #7, that's late?

Well, 7 out of 11 is pretty late, yes?

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that red/green/yellow would be the colours of foods that our ancestors were eating when our visual identification systems were "coming on line," so to speak (evolving), and we wouldn't have become hard-core hunters until much later.

My understanding is that many of the early (i.e. non-human, and non-linguistic) homnids were pretty hard-core hunters. Certainly most primates are primarily fruitarians, and so we evolved for good color vision and that kind of stuff. But the evolution of color vision was well, well before the evolution of hominid hunting -- which in turn was well before the evolution of language capacity (according to current theories).

Am I wrong in thinking that our capacity for language is an adaptation allowing us to survive in unrelated groups of gatherers and scavengers and is one of the latest adaptations we've made, and we haven't had enough generations to have evolved signifigantly since?

That's one of the most accepted current theories, yes. Unfortunately, the data on the actual evolutionary origins of human language are rather thin on the ground -- and the question of when "language" arose as opposed to mere "capacity" is still completely a mystery.

But facetiousness aside, is the environment there different enough to warrant an evolutionary change drastic enough to change our basic physiology? I mean, I had to go to Morelocks to get a variety of humans different enough to require a different language structure.

That's kind of my point. Human "cognition" is mostly driven by evolutionary constraints, so if you're saying that something is hardwired into the brain, that's a cognitive contraint. It's basically "the way the brain works." If you're suggesting that color naming is environmentally driven, then you would expect that changing the environment would change the way people name colors. This is not what Berlin/Kay see.

I guess what I'm asking is, how do you separate what's going on in your head from what's going on outside it? I'm not sliding back into PoMo here, I'm asking the opposite, what makes anyone think there is anything to cognition but responses and adaptations to environment?[/QUOTE]

 

[drkitten]

I assume that the evolution of humans was not a sudden thing so did the language areas develop after we were humans? If not then it doesn't sound like that is evidence of lack of language prior to the evolution of humans.

The jury is still out on whether Neaderthals, who are human, biologically speaking (Homo sapiens neanderthalis) had the capacity for language. If so, then the capacity for language -- specifically, the changes in brain and throat structure -- appear to be part of the changes that define the species barrier. And, of course, if Neanderthals didn't have language, then language appeared after humans did.

 

[Dogdoctor]

The jury is still out on whether Neaderthals, who are human, biologically speaking (Homo sapiens neanderthalis) had the capacity for language. If so, then the capacity for language -- specifically, the changes in brain and throat structure -- appear to be part of the changes that define the species barrier. And, of course, if Neanderthals didn't have language, then language appeared after humans did.

I guess if the definition of a human is language ability then that would be true otherwise it could still be some intermediate form.

 

[drkitten]

It could still be some intermediate form.

Of course it could -- but if so, it's one we haven't yet found (and have no evidence for). We're back to the "fairies might be what makes bread rise" problem again.

 

[Dogdoctor]

Of course it could -- but if so, it's one we haven't yet found (and have no evidence for). We're back to the "fairies might be what makes bread rise" problem again.

How does one get from whatever the prehuman to human form without transitional forms? We aren't as likely to find fossils of transitional forms since they would be far less of them. Or does evolution somehow allow for instant change from one species to another? If not then this smells like intelligent design theory.

 

[drkitten]

How does one get from whatever the prehuman to human form without transitional forms?

Every fossil is itself a transitional form.

Every fossil found creates two more "gaps" where transitional forms have not yet been found.