User Login
Heather Keller
Seminar Paper One – Comparison…
As the first day of class came to a close I was left with a tickling question in my mind. What is the difference between language and communication? Is there a difference? How do we know if there is really a difference or just a perceived difference from the bias of human observation, or lack thereof?
After reading I am left thinking perhaps the difference lies in that language is a form of communication, much like ponies are horses, yet like the horse not also being a pony (necessarily) so too is communication not (necessarily) language.
Reading both texts it would seem that the authors agree that language is a human trait we evolved to. What seems to be disputed is evidence indicating speech was possible only very recently or is something our ancestors were capable of a long time past what is presently considered.
It would seem that Diamond takes a few pieces of information for granted, such as Neanderthals “having big brains, [but] something still missing (Diamond, 1992, pg. 44.)” Diamond goes on to say that “apes have not gone on to develop much more complex natural languages of their own, [because] the structure of the laryn, tongue, and associated muscles that give us fine control over spoken sounds” were lacking (Diamond, 1992, pg. 55.)”
Graslund states that “thinking is not grounded in language.” He also states, right in the very first paragraph that “not only humans have language – most other creatures do too (Graslund, 2005. pg. 106.)” By page 117, Graslund is talking about the physical changes in the throat of humans which not only allows talking but also results in much easier death by suffocation. He says that the “afarenes had their heads almost directly over their necks and spines, and that their neck was considerably less muscular than that of the chimpanzees, [which] suggests that this process had already come a fair wayby 4 million years ago. Diamond has in his chart of The Human Family Tree on page 35, the Neanderthals living around 500,000 to 100,000 years ago and still not capable of speech. While Graslund is implying that 4 million years ago, a mere 2 million or less years, after upright hominids came to be, there were those with skulls taking on the right shape to allow speech.
It seems to me that there is a gross difference of opinion here. Diamond seems to imply speech is a relatively new skill for humans, while Graslund implies it has been a skill in our possession for almost twice the time as is the popular trend. If the idea that humans are not the only being capable of language, I think that could be an easily made deduction. If looking at this question from the bias of human language is the only language, then perhaps I can see the indescrepencies. I don’t feel too much closer to an answer to my question as I started off with.
Diamond, Jared. 1992, The Third Chimpanzee; The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal. HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. New York, NY.
Graslund, Bo. 2005, Early Humans and Their World. London & NY: Routledge.
