cl@ (Cameron Laird) (04/03/91)
I recommend attention to 1990. Bickerton, Derek. Language & Species. The University of Chicago Press. Derek Bickerton, a respected linguistic anthropologist, exhibits his professional maturity in grappling with the big questions on the origin of human language. The last decade has witnessed a number of readable works, all of them the products of intellectual passion by men and women of the just-post-Margaret-Mead-and-Louis-Leakey (say) generation. Each has taken risks in synthesizing material from a range of disciplines, each has crystallized a few key ideas into memorable hypotheses, and each has presented those hypotheses as remarkably productive in explaining the human condition. Bickerton's work fits this description. I paraphrase his key claim: language didn't come to our ancestors so that they could communicate; it was so that they could understand--internally represent--their world better, and thus live more fruitfully. The book explores the evidences and consequences of this hypothesis. Is there interest in these newsgroups in discussing these issues? I expect that the anthropologic journals have already reviewed *Language & ...*, but I haven't been able to browse them for many months. I'll note that many (particularly, in my experience, those of European training), dismiss this sort of broad treatment as mere mythologizing. Bickerton has organized his work well, though (including a useful Index), and my guess is that at least some of his formulations will stick, that is, will become commonplaces of received wisdom. -- Cameron Laird USA 713-579-4613 cl@lgc.com (cl%lgc.com@uunet.uu.net) USA 713-996-8546
mls@panix.uucp (Michael Siemon) (04/03/91)
In article <1991Apr2.204906.9048@lgc.com> cl@ (Cameron Laird) writes: >I recommend attention to > 1990. Bickerton, Derek. Language & Species. > The University of Chicago Press. >I paraphrase his key claim: language didn't come to our >ancestors so that they could communicate; it was so that >they could understand--internally represent--their world >Is there interest in these newsgroups in discussing these issues? Despite its inherent speculativeness, I'd say it is *highly* appropriate material in the groups you have posted to. As a matter largely unconstrained by clear evidence, it may be better in talk.origins (where I've directed follow-ups) than in the sci. groups -- but be sure to put Ted Holden in your kill files if you want to follow up in talk.origins (Ted is convinced that we were all telepathic before Velikovsky's Venus started us on a relatively short few thousand years of language use :-)) I, for one, would be very interested what evidence Bickerton can adduce towards his thesis, and how he uses it. -- Michael L. Siemon "The watchwords of creativity are m.siemon@ATT.COM slopiness, poor fit, quirky design - or - and above all else, redundancy." panix!mls@cmcl2.NYU.EDU -- Stephen J. Gould