The development of language happened precisely in the brain and not anywhere else, and the whole development was gradual - without any genius or defining event.
Humans, in their characteristic chauvinism, often seek "what is allowed by man from the beast". This search is motivated by the assumption that there must be an answer to the question and that it is impossible for man to have any essential advantage over the beast. One of the common answers to this question is "the language", that is, the claim that man is allowed over the beast is that he has a language.
My contention is that despite the obvious bias in favor of the person inherent in the question, it happens to have an answer. That is - that there is indeed a "man is allowed from the beast" and that indeed, the answer "the language" is almost (but only almost) the correct answer.
More than once we come across articles that try to trace the origins of human language. Almost without exception, these articles raise one of two hypotheses: the first is that the origin of language is the collection of vocal calls and signals used among the various animals. The second is that the origin of language is actually in physical gestures and that the first language of humans was a sign language that developed into a vocal language at the same time as the voice box in our throat developed.
In his wide-ranging book "Unweaving the rainbow" (translated into Hebrew as "unweaving the rainbow" although the name "unweaving the rainbow" was more suitable, in my opinion), Richard Dawkins tries to trace, among other things, to that founding event in which some genius invented the language for the first time.
My argument is that all the above approaches miss the main point, which is that the development of language happened precisely in the brain and not anywhere else, and the whole development was gradual - without any genius or founding event.
My argument is based on the following considerations:
If language had been created as a result of the brilliance of some genius on some occasion, without a special development of the brain, all the animals around us would have been talking long ago. After all, they don't need that special genius and event because we provide them with everything that that genius and that event could provide. More than that - we invest active efforts in trying to instill a language in them and despite this our success is extremely limited. In fact, this consideration is a private case of a deeper consideration that focuses on the development of language as part of the evolutionary process of the human species.
Evolution, as we know today, is a gradual process based on mutations that survive and spread in the population as a result of the advantages they give to individuals who carry them. What advantage could the cumulative mutations to our ability to learn languages confer on the single individual in which they were created?
After all, this individual could not converse with anyone around him, so his ability to converse was of no use to him at all. How, then, did the ability to speak spread and become common?
The challenge faced by this mutation is similar to the challenge faced by the best salesman in the world - the one who tried to sell the first phone when there were no other phones available and therefore there was no one to talk to through it. That salesman at least had the option of offering the device to several people at the same time and thus allowing them to talk with each other, but this option was not available to evolution which, as we know, works on individual individuals and not on entire groups in a coordinated manner.
Before I go on and detail how, in my opinion, human language could have developed, I would like to explain why I argued at the beginning of things that language is only almost the right answer to the question of what is permissible for humans from animals.
Humans don't just speak one language or another. They can relatively easily acquire additional languages and these languages can be spoken languages or sign languages or written languages. The ability to acquire a language is a stronger ability than the ability to speak a certain language, but even it still does not exhaust the essence of our ability in the field.
To me, the essence is our ability to invent language (yes! the ability to invent language; not the ability to use it or acquire it). This ability is clearly manifested in the mathematicians who constantly invent words during the formulation of their proofs. Their use of this process is so common that in order not to put too much effort into the choice of words, they give each time a new and completely different meaning to the words they have used in the past, with the understanding that this meaning will only be used by them in a specific and clear context.
The following paragraph is an illustration for the benefit of those who are not intimidated by mathematical language. The others are welcome to skip it.
Let's take the word epsilon for example: anyone who has ever dealt with mathematics knows the opening "Let epsilon be as small a number as we wish for it to be so and so..." This is actually a declaration that from this point on - until the end of the current chapter in the proof - the word epsilon will be used to indicate a certain thing and this without committing about any meaning given to this word in other contexts. In the lectures I give from time to time about solving puzzles, I bring more and more interesting examples, but this is not the place to go into detail.
The interesting thing is that, while the ability to use language does not give an individual any evolutionary advantage, the ability to invent a language actually gives it such an advantage because the mechanism of linking a complex concept to some symbol simplifies the mental reference to that concept and enables the construction of more complex concepts that use it. This mechanism - when activated recursively - allows the individual to perfect his understanding of the environment and thus gives him a higher ability to survive.
This advantage to the individual will eventually translate into a higher number of offspring and will eventually become the common property. Human beings, in my opinion, started to talk to each other only after most of them already used to "talk to themselves" - not in any formal language - but in an internal language that each of them developed for themselves.
An anecdotal detail that is important for those looking for high spirits is that after I stood up for the mistake I described in Dawkins' book, I wrote him the things and he accepted my opinion.
71 תגובות
A new linguistics based on natural knowledge
http://img2.timg.co.il/forums/2/9422152e-be12-499e-a9ca-7e3b0261dec0.pdf
Indeed amazing, M.R.
You thought of an idea that someone else had already thought of, 243 years before you. You are a genius! 🙂
Michael
Indeed the link is fascinating - thanks!
Stunning!
It turns out that the ideas I put forward here, with the exception of the link to evolution which was not known at the time, were already put forward by a wise man named Herder in 1772 (!).
For some reason, most of those dealing with the origins of the language ignored him, so I have not heard of him either until today:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/herder/1772/origins-language.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Gottfried_Herder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_linguistics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_family
light
Of course there is.
To all the respondents, is there any explanation for the formation of the different languages? (not related to the Tower of Babel)
Remember the description of the relationship between the ability to invent language and the ability to think effectively?
Here is a nice example from the last few days:
http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/science/1.1827725
"Mochizuki is developing a new language, so it will take a good few years before there is a consensus as to whether it is correct or not,"
I'm stupid and can't control it. I feel like hitting myself
deer
Your calculation starts when there are already words
And before there were words?
See my response 57 to learn about the development of the ape sounds into words.
Michael (Rothschild),
Interesting article - it seems to me that the idea is certainly acceptable.
In the past, I read ("Bnei Minnuno" - Marvin Harris) that monkeys learning sign language were able to pass some to the next generation - the important thing is that the number of signs decreased from generation to generation (they were taught 300 signs, let's say, and 200 were passed on to the next generation) - I don't remember if they invented signs New or not (the book is not in my possession).
This made me think that the transition to creating a language is made as soon as the average intelligence in the group allows a ratio of 1 between the number of words in generation X and the number of words in generation X+1, from then on a language will be created.
The transition from 0.99 to 1.01 is continuous, but it creates a qualitative difference in its actual expression which is the difference between us and a white chimpanzee.
Yair Shimron.
The question "how did the language develop" that I tried to answer is not a question in linguistics but a question in evolution.
I didn't just talk about the fact that humans are able to learn many types of languages and even invent languages, some of which are based on voice, some are based on gestures and some are based on signs on paper.
It is a special generic ability that no linguistic explanation can answer.
I think I explained things very well, all the examples are relevant and we will remain divided.
Michael,
Here is the sentence that I may not have read properly and to which I mostly answered: "My argument is that all the above approaches miss the main point and that is that the development of language happened specifically in the brain and not anywhere else, and the whole development was gradual - without any genius or defining event."
Surely you should not repeat the article. In fact, it is full of problematic claims. The example of mathematicians inventing a language, and the ability to add Zemanhof and many others, is based on modern people inventing something more similar to what already exists.
Dawkins is not a linguist, and the idea that language is "invented", or "invented" is not accepted at all in this field. Language, and again to be more precise - speech developed slowly and not by invention. And in particular it is necessary to understand what you ignored when I said that speech is a voluntary system of actions, that is, it does not lie in the genes!! What evolved in the genes is not speech and language but the biochemical structures and processes that enable this set of voluntary actions as they enable any other set of voluntary actions, such as using all types of tools, riding a bicycle, typing and anything else you can think of. The evolution of speech and following it language is first of all cognitive, parallel to structural and biochemical evolution, and it did not occur in an individual but in all partners of the human lineage for thousands of generations. I don't want to create an argument using the argument method, so I suggested that you read my book. Happy New Year
Year:
I don't think you read my words deeply.
Dawkins read them and was therefore convinced and since then we correspond frequently.
I do not want to repeat the entire article in response and I suggest that you simply read it because it includes a detailed answer to your claim.
Michael, I just discovered your article today, and even though it's been a year, you might still notice my comment. Language did not develop in the brain, but as always happens in all brains of all organisms with a brain in reciprocal processes between the functions of the organism and the brain processes. There is no fundamental difference between speech, which is in fact the object that needs to be studied (and since language is an abstract system built upon speech), and any system of voluntary actions. Speech is a voluntary system of actions. I published two books on the evolution of the language: "How the language came to be and how the Hebrew" Chericover 2000, and "Voices from Heaven - the evolution of the sounds of expression into a general language", Chericover 2006. Find one of them, in how many libraries you can find them, or write to me. Especially the second one, where I developed the theory more.
"How is man allowed to separate from animals" - the meaning is not the search for the facts that we all know (communication, awareness). The question is why we are endowed with it, and the animals are not..?
Why does man have other needs than salt?
fresh:
You probably didn't read the article carefully.
The answer to your question is found in it and I have no way to express it better than what I wrote in the article.
It is surprising that Dawkins accepted your opinion, I accept Dawkins' opinion as it appears in his book.
The first person who developed a brain + vocal ability for language, could communicate with other humans at the same level we communicate with animals, at a level of simple expressions that my dog also understands such as go, come, up, etc. and this gave him a huge advantage and he passed it on to future generations who perfected the ability to speak more and more.
What is so unreasonable about this?
I am very happy to read that I will not 'earn' your response again.
However, I would be happy to receive factual and unemotional responses from other colleagues.
Nahi:
Being moral is also telling the truth!
For your information and for the information of anyone who makes patently false claims such as the claim that the scientific world abandoned the Darwinist theory a long time ago or at all.
This is my last response to your words because I argue only with human beings and according to your definition you are not gifted with what is allowed of man than beast.
Man is allowed from the animal is first of all in his moral feelings, and it is a fact that none of the writers here walks in the market without any clothing for his skin. In the matter of the foundations of human morality, the critique of pure reason will be hostile to Immanuel Kant.
Moreover, among animals there are not and will not be social laws, police, court, and punishment of any kind. All of these are based on human recognition of a universal moral duty that every person is bound to by virtue of being human.
Therefore, the discussion of what is the difference between man and beast is not relevant to the issue of language. Language is a tool of expression for messages that a person wants to convey to others.
According to the Darwinist theory [which for some reason appears in many articles here without taking into account that the world of science abandoned it a long time ago], there is indeed a problem with how language developed. But this is not its only problem, and all parts of the theory suffer from a similar problem, since the same 'sage' who invented the language necessarily had in mind in a structured way some system of the ability to transmit messages, their distribution and manner of expression. And if so, again we won't gain anything if we define what he innovated.
But, the truth is that the first man [a handiwork of the creator of the world] was created as a perfect person with all the abilities we have and with much greater wisdom than we will ever have, he was born with the Hebrew language[!!!] and the other languages were created in the well-known Tower of Babel, when some A significant number of them are a product of Hebrew.
Linguists have elaborated on this matter and I do not intend to repeat their words here, and the honest source can search and find.
amber:
If you want to see it that way - see it that way.
The main thing is that you can continue to live. I wouldn't want to be the reason you can't live.
Michael, it seems you didn't understand. And if that's the case, then I probably didn't explain well. I can live with that, but not with arrogance that comes from misunderstanding + unwillingness to understand.
amber:
מה לעשות?
I don't think you understood, but anyway.
I guess we can both live with that disagreement.
To Michael - I think I actually understood your claim, but the criticism was not about its content but about the way to it.
Regarding inventing - I'm not sure I understood. I mean, I understand the example you gave of the invention, but it is based on creating a verbal symbol that is in the first place allowed by man. Could it be that there are other animals that are able to "invent" in the area that is theirs?
amber:
I think you didn't understand things.
I explained that there is what is allowed to man and it is the ability to invent a language.
I'm not talking about what you call the ability to *invent* even though this also exists and not only in humans.
The ability to give a concept a symbol is not limited in terms of the symbols that can be given to the concept - it can be some image in the mind, a physical gesture, a combination of sounds or a mark on the sand. Everything goes.
All the things were said to explain how the matter developed gradually, therefore your concluding sentence "not allowed and not gradual..." shows that you did not understand.
They did an experiment like this. Once the Romans took two baby boys and raised them under conditions of partial detention if I'm not mistaken for about 8 years where it was forbidden to talk to them but only to satisfy their needs.
This cruel experiment proved that they developed a language between them and bonded.
Source - Professor Michael Har Segor.
Views
Great subject for me. I am not closed to the fact that all people who are able to learn a language have the ability to invent and if that is the case today, then in my opinion all the more so then. I did not fully understand the development of the writing to this conclusion. The passage opens with a criticism of what is permissible for man and continues with a certain resistance to a gradual development from a language of signs or readings. So it's not allowed and it's not gradual, and on the other hand, the claim to the ability to invent is different from the ability to learn on a qualitative rather than quantitative level, so now it's allowed?
Michael
Yes, all of this is really archeology even though there are things that have not changed that much for some reason over the years.
On the other hand, today my little boy plays with a PIC that costs about 2-3 dollars RISC a 32-bit processor with a language rich in hundreds of counters from those "sophisticated" 370/168 processors and its early successors with a greater clock speed of hundreds of counters and includes an internal math processor.
Michael
I remembered the name of the guy Gideon Ehrlich, he also liked to abuse students
Apparently still lecturing there
By the way, Prof. Shvika dealt a lot with natural languages, several systems were developed for the subject there.
Received the Israel Prize not long ago.
how do you say?
Even nostalgia is not what it used to be 🙂
Higgs:
As for Muscat's replacement - I don't think I ever knew his name.
It is possible that he got into musket shoes after I had already transferred to another position in the army (which was done outside of the MRAM campus and caused me to become somewhat detached from what was done there) and maybe even after I was released (B 94).
Higgs:
I don't know when the TSO entered Bar Ilan. I know that later he was really there but I don't know if he was when the salary project started.
In any case - working at the Technion also had personal reasons because the people who ran it were "natives" of the Technion.
Higgs:
Right. at least partially.
The first version was developed on the limited brother MFT.
I no longer remember if the second version was opened under MFT or MVS
VSAM was irrelevant because it is a file access method and the AMT 3 system was indifferent to the issue of the access method due to the virtualization it had for this issue (yes - the idea of virtualizing things was also born with us!) through access routines that the AMT 3 knew only the SPEC of them but she didn't care how they were applied.
It is true that during the development of the system we did not yet use VSAM, but it was not relevant to the project.
Michael
This Muscat had an heir whose name I do not remember who also used to abuse students.
I think he is also already retired today, maybe you remember his name.
By the way Bar Ilan had a TSO and they sold time to many entities.
Michael
That means that the work was not written on MVS, meaning without VIRTUAL STORAGE, right?
And without VSAM, right? I guess IBM was in no hurry to replace the limited MVT and its relatives operating systems. STORAGE RELOCATION entered the machines as early as 72 but they didn't bother to upgrade their customers several years later for some reason.
Higgs:
Following on from the matter of the professors - Professor Haber Ilani with whom I had the most interesting indirect contact (without acquaintance) was Muscat who was responsible for the exams in "mathematical thinking" that were given to the people of the computer units who wanted to study at Haber Ilan in a framework called "MMARM University".
The day after these exams was a real holiday for me because he would abuse the examinees and give them riddles that only a few are able to solve.
All these riddles arrived on my desk the day after the exam - something that brought me great pleasure.
Higgs:
Regarding the professors - I heard their names but did not know them.
Roots at Tel Aviv University.
Higgs:
We also do difficult things in life.
If it's hard for you to believe then try harder and you will succeed 🙂
It was written in assembler and developed code to run in machine language.
On the other hand - I didn't write it alone.
The first version was developed under the leadership of the chief programmer at that time - Yaakov Ben Zvi.
I led the development of the second version - when I was the chief programmer of the unit - even before I was appointed head of the software branch when the chief programmer section became a software branch.
You may be surprised to hear, but systems that were developed later were also partially developed in assembler.
It was justified at the time but as I mentioned, over the years it became profitable to switch to C and that is what I instructed my people to do (the conversion to C was mainly done by a guy named Aryeh Roddick).
The first Ila award I received was for a system called "Manufacturing Work Monitor" whose development I led even before I was appointed head of the program. In this system (which was the first expert system I encountered - even before I knew the term) there were parts in assembler and parts in PL/1.
A not-so-successful plagiarism of this system became Control M, the flagship product of the new dimension that was bought by BMC for 750 million dollars.
In none of these developments did we get help from the TSO because the TSO entered the IDF later.
The first use of the computer units in TSO was in the salary project that my unit started (a project in which my involvement was low and for which the unit also won the Ila award). Even at the beginning of this project, there was no TSO in the IDF and the unit reached an agreement with the Technion so that the company could go develop there.
Michael
I imagine that you must have known Prof. Shvika and Prof. Aviazer Frankel
Michael
It's hard to believe that you wrote such a system in assembler, it's a lot of work.
You must have written in an MVS/TSO operating system and PL/1 already existed.
Higgs:
The IDF still uses it because it did not find a good replacement on the market.
For many years now, the IDF has adopted a buy policy in a make or buy dilemma, and the fact that no replacement can be found even though so many years have passed shows how suboptimal this decision is.
I was once invited to the unit to give a lecture on creativity to the company. It was after my reserve service that people once again tasted a bit of the "taste of the past" - the time when the IDF computer units were way ahead of the rest of the world.
The lecture I gave them relates to the topic of the present article in a very important aspect:
Just as language strengthens our thinking abilities, it may - if we are not careful - also limit them.
I drew the attention of the listeners to the slogan "You don't need to reinvent the wheel" which was rooted in the essence of computer units (nice that it also links to a previous article on this website) as a justification for the Buy policy I mentioned.
I reminded them that the original phrase was "you don't have to reinvent the wheel" and that dropping the suffix was disastrous because it gave them legitimacy to stop inventing.
I asked them where they think we would be if the chopped proverb had taken root before the invention of the wheel.
Higgs:
It was originally developed on the predecessor of the 370 - I think it was 360/65.
The second version I'm talking about was developed on the 370.
Then the compiler was rewritten in the C language (originally written in IBM assembler) and integrated into other systems on digital computers and PCs
Michael
On second thought, I hope the IDF is not still using such an ancient system.
Michael
40 years. It is therefore an antiquities development tool and a lot of work.
Either it was developed on IBM's 370 series or before it or on Digital or on Burroughs.
I bet on digital.
Higgs:
I just saw your comment but my reply to the cool one does match it.
The cool:
It is not a language I wrote in but a language I developed myself (in fact I developed a new generation of it because it already had a previous generation).
It was a "Hebrew" language that was and still is (about 40 years after its creation) used to retrieve information in the IDF's personnel system.
It was non-procedural and in that sense it resembled SQL but it was not SQL style.
Two of the notable differences are:
In AMT 3 there is a rich mechanism for creating types and virtual data calculated based on other data - in the data dictionary;
Truth 3 is not based on the paradigm of a relational database (a concept that developed later) and is more suited to a hierarchical database.
Michael
In relation to OO, I do not dispute your right of the first ones, well done. Only that if so we are talking about almost 30 years ago.
Michael,
Was the language you wrote in the retrieval system in SQL style?
And really, thank you for the article, a beautiful article. It's been a long time since I've seen an article in a scientist that brings a thought process and a thesis
someone:
I didn't go to a new high school.
I am another Michael 🙂
Arnon:
You missed the main point.
The explanation I gave is an explanation based entirely on natural selection.
A language could not have been created without giving an advantage to a single individual because the first one it developed had no one to talk to and therefore would not have given him or the tribe any advantage (since communication requires at least two individuals to communicate).
More than that - languages - at different levels of development - are also found in animals and some of them (like the dance of the bees) were mentioned in the comments here. These languages did not develop to the level of our languages precisely because the animals that use them do not have the ability to invent our language and therefore the development is very slow.
It is important, for example, that the exposure of the teeth is used as a means of communicating a threat in most animals.
Most likely this developed as a result of the fact that in order to bite one has to expose the teeth.
The next step in this development was that the animals that detected exposed teeth knew it was worth running away.
The next stage was when the animals that bared their teeth to prey began to perceive that when they bared their teeth - some ran away.
This made them adopt the baring of their teeth as a means of intimidation.
A language with similar characteristics is the language in which animals mark their territory.
Each of you is invited to recreate in your mind the process that led to this according to the script of exposing the teeth.
It works - as you can see - but very very slowly.
The cool commenter:
What I described is a generalization of what you said.
The ability to build concepts using more basic concepts of course also contains the OO subtype, but it also contains more complex ways to combine terms.
By the way, I must point out that I personally invented the idea of OO even before it became public domain and integrated it into an IDF retrieval system called AMT 3.
I don't know how the idea grew in the wider world and if it had anything to do with what I did in the army.
Yigal c.
Monkeys are indeed closer to us than other animals and it is not surprising that their language skills are better than other animals.
However, monkeys do not tend to invent new concepts.
The famous case (which I assume you're talking about) where a monkey invented the combination "water hotel" or something similar to it is still far from what we do because it's just a sentence consisting of two words that both have a prior meaning that he intended to convey.
palm tree:
See my answer to Arnon.
Speaking groups could only be formed after individuals capable of speaking were created.
At some point such a group was formed among the monkeys using the mechanism I described or a mechanism similar to it and this group was probably the human group from which we are all descendants.
Dekel, Michael
The idea that the origin of speech is from the person himself as a result of the very pattern of his mind is already presented in the sources of Judaism's thought beginning with the translation of Unclus on the Torah and the Zohar.
The uniqueness of man over the animals is called by a name that is "a spirit that fills" (this is the translation of the verse and let man "live a soul" = "a spirit that fills")
Or according to Maimonides and many others, "the speaking soul"
palm tree,
It seems to me that when Michael wrote 'talk to themselves' he meant that they 'realized', achieved, ideas that went through their heads, and not that they actually talked to themselves.
The article is very interesting, but I think you miss a bit,
Evolution does not refer only to individuals but also to groups.
A tribe that developed better communication skills was able to hunt better and maybe even
To rob in its organized form a tribe communicates less.
People communicate either with voices or with signs, and it's the same no matter which of them
Our language developed, but it probably happened in a gradual process between different individuals,
That is, someone connected two agreed signs to a third sign, someone understood it because he knew it
the two signs and copied it. And so from convention to convention and clan imitates clan,
It makes sense that the media race has begun.
The idea that people talked to themselves seems pointless, it makes more sense that they talked to their offspring,
which probably also contain the wisdom of the language.
The question is if language development is so simple why only we master it at such a level,
And as usual the answer is probably simple, there is no need for it. I find it hard to believe that the chimpanzee is sitting frustrated that she is unable to convey an idea or a danger to the members of the group, because she is probably conveying enough information for them to survive.
Roy,
And yet, it seems that the summary of our cruelty with our insight into what it is doing exceeds all the 'witnesses' - again we went too far, too high, too fast...
And by the way, in my opinion there are so many things that are not acceptable by today's science but they are the infrastructure
The fundamental for all. Fundamental principles for all contexts. And the origin of the emanation for the set of phenomena.
lion
Regarding the writings, in my opinion, we should also refer to all kinds of unidentified signs - these are writings.
The world is teeming with knowledge that is not brought to the knowledge. But..this is it.
If you asked where my sources are from: based on principles that connect to each other and extensive and integrated world literature.
Michael
Outstanding! Is there a sequel?
By the way, I wrote a clarification in the article on hydrogen bonds in relation to the memory of water.
Igal,
Monkeys also treat monkeys from other tribes with terrible cruelty: raiding them, torturing them by sticking pointed sticks in all parts of their bodies and so on.
Unfortunately, it seems that man is permitted not precisely in the cruelty he exhibits towards his own kind and others.
I'm not sure that human nature is expressed directly in a different trait from all animals, but more in quantity, in depth, to the extent that any traits have gone far in their strength and there are certainly other aspects in which our traits differ from those of other animals. On the one hand, there is apparently justice in the claim that what is allowed to man is the ability to invent a language, since primates learn (at their low level) sign language and even converse in it with their teachers, but do not invent a language. On the other hand, cases are also known in which chimpanzees invented combinations of words (that were known to them separately before) - their epsilon - to describe new objects that they did not know. It is true that their epsilon did not change its meaning with each discussion, but even so there is a certain degree of invention. On the other hand, the ability to conceptualize - linking a complex concept to a symbol - indeed confers a great evolutionary advantage, but it is also possible that the dance of the bees is also a type of linking a complex concept to a symbol, and again, man went this way higher, faster and farther than any other animal.
It seems that we are left with the only difference that man is allowed, unfortunately - the terrible cruelty with which we treat others, our own kind and other species.
Nevertheless, Michael's words are interesting and the premise that language originates in the brain is probably true. The relatively large brain of man created a complex language with very great capabilities that brought us this far.
Miki Michael Rothschild. Did you happen to study at New High School in Tel Aviv?
There was a credit and for some reason it disappeared.
Until after comment 6 there was no credit for the article. So how did Geva know that it was Michael's article?
Hugin
Where did you get the claims about the uniqueness of the pagan peoples and the white race? As far as I know, language skills are the same for all members of the human race.
Without referring to the correctness of your comments about the development of writing, what is the relationship of writing to the development of the spoken language? As we know, most of the time of human existence he spoke and only in the last thousands of years he started writing.
Thank you for bringing the problem to our attention.
It is possible that all the nations of the world should be taken into account. There are pagan nations that continue without the commentary
You gave. Their ability to adapt to language acquisition is higher than the average developed person.. because of the accessibility and internal flexibility to nature for spontaneity and imitation.
Linguistic cognition was created by the white man. This created a split in my brain and a buffer for spontaneous connection with the other parts (which slowly fall asleep within him). He works more on patterns and templates as I understood by the term "objects" that the previous one may have meant 6: sketched etc.
Initial writing was also rounder, only later it developed into lines and squares...you can also see this through the development of children's drawings...and in the transition from emotional pronunciation to a structured pattern.
Why is it not written who wrote this interesting article? Blackmail the author.
In my opinion, the development of the linguistic part of the brain generally began as a thought-consciousness part that strengthened the human ability to think and arrange things in the brain, in an OO object oriented way. And the vocal-verbal linguistic ability only started when the evolution had enough to develop the linguistic part to a sufficient level.
For attention - if the human being as a baby in general is a stage in the development of evolution after all the animals, then he combines within himself all the vocal cords to bring out the vowels and syllables found in the spiritual, plant and animal nature. Spontaneously he emits-receives-imitates-communicates
and traces the voices heard around him from every noise... and existing stimulus.
So he doesn't invent exactly. But rolls with tongues.. and thus imitation becomes.. (like the monkey) languages that drive creativity-creativeness.
and up to thought patterns...alternating up to complex and primal...and back again, God forbid.
What about the simplest explanation of all - natural selection.
Hunting groups with the ability to link were far more successful than those that were not,
You could describe where there is danger and where there is food.
The more the level of communication increased, the more that group became sedated.
"Mutations" with better communication ability survived longer.
For support: isolated babies invented their own language.
Michael
It's very nice to read an article where you put thought into it, don't pull from the hip and attack everyone who opposes you. Continue on this path.
Not long ago there was an article on TV about the difference between us and the monkeys (I think in National Geographic).
They found that when a person (even a baby) encounters a phenomenon that interests him, he points to the phenomenon and draws attention to it. This indicates (according to them) that we were born with an instinct to share our experiences with others, the meaning, sharing our knowledge with others means teaching. We were born with an instinct to teach.
In monkeys, instinct does not exist, each individual is immersed in his own experiences and there is no need to share with others. That is why learning in the monkeys is done only by imitation.
This difference, according to the article, is what created human development
Indeed, interesting and important points.
It seems to me that Chomsky himself made the claim about the ability to invent language.
Anyway, you explained it nicely.