http://img467.imageshack.us/img467/7811/page012xs.th.jpg
http://img467.imageshack.us/img467/4848/page029sg.th.jpg
http://img467.imageshack.us/img467/6185/page034uj.th.jpg
http://img467.imageshack.us/img467/818/page045rt.th.jpg
http://img467.imageshack.us/img467/504/page054fl.th.jpg
http://img467.imageshack.us/img467/7704/page060wd.th.jpg
http://img467.imageshack.us/img467/5851/page071aq.th.jpg

VB

It was very thoughtful of you to put this up for everybody to see, VB.  I wish I had the equipment and the expertise to do that as well.

Now regarding the text, which I’ve diligently read, it reminds me of a discussion we held here about which language we thought in, and whether we thought using words at all.  Some of us said we think in our native language, others (like me) said they thought in whichever language they were using at the moment, whereas others expressed the belief that a lof of times they could think without the help of words.

Brazilian dude

K-
Aphasia suggests that self-consciousness and self-awareness in the pre-modern environment, awareness of others, and the desire/need to communicate with them all contributed to/resulted in the evolution of (selection for the vocal genes, etc.) language as it issues from the speech centers of the brain. I find this to be fascinating, and would love to learn more from you guys.

DUDE-
That we are able to "think in a language" is precisely what surprises and delights me about the experiments and studies in this area. Because, as mentioned above, if natural selection guided the evolution of our physiological ability to speak and to create language (starting, I believe, with Cro-Magnon about the time he drew representational art on the walls at Lascaux - which is an equally intriguing, related area of study, i.e., how our ancestors’ paintings symbolized their hope that the drawings would bring the depicted animals to them, how they somehow began to believe that their own actions, apart from actually going out hunting, would influence the environment to their advantage, and how their "skinner-box" beliefs led, eventually, to the establishment of religions, followers of which ended up relying on the clergy as a magic conduit between the unseen forces that were thought to have been influenced by their own "belief-driven" actions), then the question arises: "How can we think in different languages given that our ‘hard-wiring’ evolved to create vocal representations of our self-constructed inner world in only one language initially?" I think that further study will reveal that man’s beliefs about his environment in diverse (sometimes isolated) areas on the planet gave rise to an extremely fast evolutionary adaptation for speaking different languages. How?

The study of aphasia thus far demonstrates (finally in response to your comment) how wonderful and miraculous it is that, after having learned to use our inherent communication equipment, we developed "third-level-of-thought" communication skills which enabled us, after a time, not only to speak several different languages in order better to survive in different environments, but, also, to think, as our speech centers processed new sounds, in very different contexts with expert, learned, exact semantics, cadence, huge vocabularies, and vast semiotic divides between the thousands of languages spoken today. Humans who settled in different geographical locations, in addition to capitalizing on the incredibly fast (given the usual time-scale of evolutionary change), physical adaptations that were advantageous to them where they lived, drew upon their inborn talent to relate themselves to the outside world and to others, adapted to the necessities of survival in their particular environment, thrived in transactions among the different peoples neighboring their location, used resources in ways appropriate to the surrounding topography, etc., and actually caused(?) language to continue to evolve. This to me is one of the most gripping tales of our history.

V

Exactly.

I have to look through my notes/ get some books from my library and then I’ll try to write a coherent response. (NOT easy for me!)

V

and how did they decide that the cavity that was found in H. habililis was the area that housed this language center even 2 million years ago?

Couldn’t agree more, Katy. Aside from the question of whether growth in this region allowed language to develop at a later stage, or was the result of rudimentary language use becoming important for survival, different regions of the brain are notorious for shifting the kind of processing they do, e.g. the visual cortex of people blind from birth does not stop functioning, it just takes on different tasks.
Broca’s area seems to have at least two sub-areas, one (next to the motor cortex) involved with the production of speech-sounds, and one involved in organizing sounds (edit: or other forms of communication) into meaningful sequences. And it’s impossible to know from fossil evidence which function (if either) is responsible for the increase in size.
No 2 million year old evidence of language, in my opinion.

-melissa

Found this rather interesting article on H. Habilis and Broca. In this article, the possibility is not ruled out.

However, here   they state "Larynx - uncertain". Technically, one doesn’t need a larynx to use language…

Here they wonder

On the one hand is the evidence for the presence of Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas in the brain of Homo habilis around 2 million years ago. Does this provide grounds for believing that Homo habilis could speak? Did the use of tools as icons by Homo erectus play a key role in the development of human spoken language? Or should we instead go along with the growing consensus—supported by many linguists—that spoken language is a late addition to the range of human abilities, originating along with fully modern humans only within the last 200,000 years? And dare we go even further, and nominate Africa as the locus of language origin?

Interesting article (with a few opposing views).

Frank

Oh jeeze, you guys are killing me, I can’t work that fast. But I am really, really pleased that I’m not alone in finding this interesting.  ;D

Now go take a nap so I can catch up.  :P

V

[quote author=Katy link=board=omni;num=1130680122;start=0#11 date=10/31/05 at 16:17:40]AND; just because the capability is there is no evidence of it’s use.

I completely agree with this.

F

I think it’s reasonable to say that art as we understand it (not the production of beautiful tools but the representation of our concept of reality in an aesthetic manner) postdates some form of ‘language’, whether spoken or gestural or even graphic. Having seen the cave-paintings of the Vesere up close, and compared them to images from other areas, it’s hard to believe that there weren’t ‘schools’ of painting at the time. So 35.000 years ago we had language, and it was probably as it is today, a mix of spoken and gestural language. It had become separate from the ‘language’ of survival, as Katy said. The culture of Altamira could not have spoken the same language as the culture of Lascaux. But someone understood both well enough.
And to me that’s the basis of civilization, not the building of cities.
So I guess my question is, 2 mya is a long time for talking without someone saying ‘Look at my bone carving, can you do better?’

-melissa

Wow! People in SoHo are dressed especially weird tonight. I wonder why…

V

dude said,

"... it reminds me of a discussion we held here about which language we thought in, and whether we thought using words at all. Some of us said we think in our native language, others (like me) said they thought in whichever language they were using at the moment, whereas others expressed the belief that a lot of times they could think without the help of words."

This is where the study of aphasics becomes instructive. From the article:

"Thinking caused me no difficulty whatever… I had to realize that the inner workings of the mind could dispense with words… Brother John… even when wholly deprived of language or internal speech… was able to tackle complex problems…"

meliss said,

"... different regions of the brain are notorious for shifting the kind of processing they do, e.g., the visual cortex of people blind from birth does not stop functioning, it just takes on different tasks."

Exactly, as in enhancing the other senses to compensate for the loss (to insure survival). From the article:

"Friends and relatives of aphasic patients, indeed, often think that there is more neurological recovery than there actually is, because many such patients develop a remarkable heightening of other, non-linguistic powers and skills, especially the ability to ‘read’ others’ intentions and meanings from their facial expressions, vocal inflections, and tone of voice, as well as all the gestures, postures, and minute movements that normally accompany speech. Such compensation may give surprising powers to aphasics - in particular, an enhanced ability to see through histrionic artifice, equivocation, or lying."

meliss also said:

"... art… postdates some form of  ‘language’... even graphic. 35.000 years ago we had language… It had become separate from the ‘language’ of survival…"

I would argue that art is language and that all forms of language have evolved by way of selective pressure to enhance survival. From the article:

"Mimesis, the deliberate and conscious representation of scenes, thoughts, feelings, intentions, etc., by mime and action, seems to be a specifically human achievement, like language… Apes, which are able to ‘ape’, or imitate, have little power to create conscious and deliberate mimetic representations… Merlin Donald suggests that a ‘mimetic culture’ may have been a crucial intermediate stage in human evolution between the ‘episodic’ culture of apes and the ‘theoretic’ culture of modern man."

V

I would agree. Both on the idea that art is language (and vice versa) and that mimetic culture probably predates (predated ... another topic) and had a huge part in creating our current ability to ‘feel’ a work of art, as if we were creating it. When I look at a painting, I often physically feel the actions that the painter performed when the work was created. And when I do my own (sadly neglected) visual work, I find I’m not thinking in any language, the background chatter might be in English, but it is not thinking, it’s just "I think I’ll try this, then this ..." with no meaning. While poetry can’t be understood without the effort of muscles involved in creating it,  I feel that painting can’t either.

Btw, still can’t figure out what those Soho people were mimicking. Oh yeah (suddenly dawns on me) themselves.

-melissa

I can’t believe you said that about being able to feel the movements of the artist from his painting. I have always felt it, but nobody believes me.

The SoHo people were imitating themselves, or, at least, their secret, inner selves, which they dare to display only on Halloween, it seems. Inhibitions definitely were cast aside as I sat on my stoop and watched the parade. Prince Street was closed to cars and the celebrants packed the street as they strutted their stuff. One costume trend that I couldn’t help but notice was the "Sexy- Nurse/Witch/Feline" thing worn immodestly by appropriately proportioned young girls. There were even a few such girls who went with a redundant but effective "Sexy-Slut" costume. Can’t wait ‘till next year!

V