User Login
Diamond & Graslund
Submitted by jamash19 on Wed, 09/26/2007 - 3:22pm.Week I
Ashley Jamison
9/26/2007
Authors Diamond and Graslund make equally valid arguments discussing their perspective on the evolution of human language in which similarities between some ideas are shared, and conversely some diverge.
Specific theories of which they agree, include the ideal that sounds familiar to our human language, the ability to articulate and pronounce words as we do today arose from a change in homo anatomy; namely “bipedalism [which] made a space for the throat and palate to broaden” (Graslund, pp. 117) and “modifications of the protohuman vocal tract” (Diamond, pp.55). Although Diamond at this point does not incorporate his thoughts on bipedalism relative to language development, it is clear he understands the necessary genetic changes protohumans had to undergo to achieve verbal communication.
On the contrary, although these authors may agree upon language acquisition from a physical perspective, they seem to differ in how they view the cognitive abilities essential to produce language. While Diamond writes “without language, even one protohuman would have had difficulty thinking out for himself how to devise a better tool” (pp.55), Graslund argues “Thinking is not grounded in language. Spoken word could have never evolved if a foundation of elementary cognitive ability had not been present from the beginning” (pp.106). It appears that Diamond views language pertinent to further advance basic cognitive abilities while Graslund views basic cognitive abilities as precursors to language.
Finally, a query answered although not necessarily debated or agreed upon by these authors is as so; Graslund questions if knowledge of complex tool making “can be transferred from individual to individual and from generation to generation without the medium of spoken language” (pp. 114). Here, Diamond gives his answer, “[language] lets us lay joint plans, teach one another, and learn from what others experienced elsewhere or in the past” (pp.141).
9/26/2007
Authors Diamond and Graslund make equally valid arguments discussing their perspective on the evolution of human language in which similarities between some ideas are shared, and conversely some diverge.
Specific theories of which they agree, include the ideal that sounds familiar to our human language, the ability to articulate and pronounce words as we do today arose from a change in homo anatomy; namely “bipedalism [which] made a space for the throat and palate to broaden” (Graslund, pp. 117) and “modifications of the protohuman vocal tract” (Diamond, pp.55). Although Diamond at this point does not incorporate his thoughts on bipedalism relative to language development, it is clear he understands the necessary genetic changes protohumans had to undergo to achieve verbal communication.
On the contrary, although these authors may agree upon language acquisition from a physical perspective, they seem to differ in how they view the cognitive abilities essential to produce language. While Diamond writes “without language, even one protohuman would have had difficulty thinking out for himself how to devise a better tool” (pp.55), Graslund argues “Thinking is not grounded in language. Spoken word could have never evolved if a foundation of elementary cognitive ability had not been present from the beginning” (pp.106). It appears that Diamond views language pertinent to further advance basic cognitive abilities while Graslund views basic cognitive abilities as precursors to language.
Finally, a query answered although not necessarily debated or agreed upon by these authors is as so; Graslund questions if knowledge of complex tool making “can be transferred from individual to individual and from generation to generation without the medium of spoken language” (pp. 114). Here, Diamond gives his answer, “[language] lets us lay joint plans, teach one another, and learn from what others experienced elsewhere or in the past” (pp.141).
