ARCHIVE - Evolving Communication - Week I

ARCHIVE - Graslund and Diamond

kitkoi20 — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 19:36:09 -0700

Jared Diamond states that we are essentially a third species of chimpanzee and that some small fraction of the 1.6% difference in DNA (between humans and chimps) is responsible for our uniquely human characteristics such as our upright posture, big brains, and capacity for language (JD 27). However we currently do not understand just how these slight variances in DNA can have such a significant impact on our physiology and behavior (JD 23). Although Diamond recognizes that DNA is only responsible for the capacity for language, which language is solely dependent on the linguistic environment the subject grows up in (JD 27). There is also evidence that the ability to communicate through and understand various symbols (the prerequisite for language) is present in chimps, gorillas and even monkeys (JD 54).

ARCHIVE - Molly Gutfeld

gutmol06 — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 18:54:14 -0700

Jared Diamond and Bo Graslund agree on many aspects of the evolution of language while also holding contradictory ideas. Both theories center on Noam Chomsky’s linguistic theory of a built-in language program, or a mental grammar (Graslund, 107). As evidence of this inherent linguistic structure these authors offer the example of Creole languages. These languages have developed throughout the modern world progressing from a linguistic mix with limited functions to the fully functional Creole. Although Creoles occur throughout the world they tend to reinvent some grammatical features again and again suggesting a universal grammar (Diamond, 162).

ARCHIVE - Roisin Mooney

mooroi04 — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 23:43:06 -0700

In Diamond and Graslund writings, both agreed that apes and chimps do not have the throat and larynx structure to produce words. They also agreed that humans do have the appropriate anatomy for speech because of evolution. In Graslund’s article, he writes that the lack of speech in animals limits their ability to communicate and sets them apart from humans. “This suggests that it is more a matter of anatomical restriction for the production of articulated sounds, rather then the ability to communicate in itself, that sets the limits for their potential to mediate through sounds”(Graslund,116). In Diamond’s book, he believes that even with an ability to speak an ape’s vocabulary would not be as large as a human’s. “Because the anatomy of apes’ vocal tracts restrict their ability to produce the variety of vowels and consonants that we can, the vocabulary of wild apes is unlikely to be anywhere near as large as our own”(Diamond, 152). Both authors agree that apes do not have the right throat structure for language. However, if the apes were given the correct anatomy, as you see from the above quotes, the authors would disagree on the level of skill the apes could acquire. Throughout Diamond’s book, his tone suggests that apes will never acquire a linguistic language. (Diamond, 153) Graslund has a different view, and believes that apes have potential in developing a rudimentary but syntax communication.(Graslund,124)

ARCHIVE - Maja Nelson

nelmaj09 — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 22:07:24 -0700

Maja Nelson

Jared Diamond and Bo Graslund have two very different views on the evolution of human language. In Diamond's view, his concept of ‘The Great Leap Forward' (Diamond p.32), supports the idea that modern human language cropped up with the rise of Homo sapiens around 40,000 years ago in Europe and that if early humans, Neanderthals specifically, had spoken language it was much simpler or nonexistent (Diamond p.56). In contrast, Graslund states that spoken language slowly evolved as a result of bipedalism, and that as early as a half a million years ago archaic sapiens could have developed language comparable to a modern 6-7 year old child (Graslund p.134).

ARCHIVE - Kate Stacey

stakat12 — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 20:12:22 -0700

Kate Stacey

These two authors agree in most of the parts but because of their different point of view [Diamond: physiological and ethological/ Graslund archeological and anatomical] they seem to have a different point of view even when they are trying to explain the same thing.

They both agree that animal communication especially among higher primates is more complex than human might think. Graslund says “Despite the complexities of the human brain it has no basic structures that cannot be found among other primates and higher mammals.” (Page 106) Diamond gives us an example of the vervet and tells us that “the call [vervet’s call] is clearly a voluntary communication, not an automatic expression of fear at the sight of a leopard” (P148)

ARCHIVE - Emily Ruff

rufemi14 — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 20:11:36 -0700

Emily Ruff

Evolving Communication

Seminar Paper 1

Graslund and Diamond have very similar takes on the evolution of human language. Both acknowledge the dawn of innovation to be entirely dependent on the development of human speech, allowing for specific knowledge to be passed between individuals providing greater success for the species. Both also acknowledge the development of language to be dependent on anatomical advantages present in human beings but restricted in other primates.

ARCHIVE - AjayConley

conand04 — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:39:01 -0700

Ajay Conley

Evolving Communications

Week 1 Seminar Topic

9/26/07

If Jared Diamond and Bo Graslund were discussing the evolution of human language they would both agree that the development of communication and especially the development of language is the most significant step taken in the evolution of human beings. They would also agree that this step is quite recent in the timeline of human evolution.

ARCHIVE - Liz Fly Daimond & Graslund

flyeli10 — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:38:35 -0700

Daimond & Graslund
Elizabeth Fly
9/26/07

Jared Daimond's and Bo Graslund's theories on the evolution of human language have a lot in common because their main arguments support each others views.
Daimond and Graslund both agree with Noam Chomsky's theory on generative grammar, which states, "That all languages have a common syntactic and grammatical core, and a common grade of complexity, and that this points to the presence of identical linguistic structures in everyone's brain from birth" (107). Both Daimond and Graslund use the example of the Creole language to support Chomsky's theory (160). For example children who have grown up only listening to pidgeon (an early form of creole) from their parents, and have gone on to speak Creole, which includes syntax (108). Graslund goes on to write, "the realization that there are certain common inherited components behind the basic construction of all languages, fixed in the make-up of the human brain, leads us to the conclusion that even modern speech has a long and unbroken biological and cultural tradition that links us with the most remote past" (109). Both Graslund and Daimond also use the fact that Cro-Magnons left behind tools as evidence that Cro-Magnons communicated with each other through spoken language (115).

ARCHIVE - Chris Soriano

sorchr23 — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:14:53 -0700

Chris Soriano
Evolving Communication Fall 2007
Seminar 1 Essay

In their writings, authors Bo Graslund and Jared Diamond argue many different cases for the evolution of language in humans. While many of their arguments seem similar, they do have strikingly different views on the onset of language in evolutionary history. Diamond says that language is what might have “triggered the Great Leap Forward”(p138) from hominid to human and that our hominid relatives likely didn’t have the same potential for innovation and intellect as Homo sapiens. Graslund claims that even Homo neandertalensis might have been capable of simple words because “the Neanderthals’ throats, air canals, and sound production do not seem to have differed much from modern humans” (p111). The source of the basic nature of our language is in our primate past, predating any great leaps but those from tree to tree.

ARCHIVE - Speach

greaut05 — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:02:23 -0700

The evolution of communication is a topic of great interest. Theorists hold many different beliefs on its emergence. Jared Diamond and Bo Graslund both discuss the evolution of Neanderthals their innovative tools and why they didn’t have what it takes to evolve into the ever communicating Homo sapiens. Bo Graslund states on (pg 111) that “Neanderthals toolkit was not the ability to think analytically, logically or in the abstract, Neanderthals brains have also been claimed to signal certain limitations in their overall ability and capacity for speech.” Jared Diamond holds that “But Neanderthal tools from 100,000 and 40,000 years ago look essentially the same.