Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

If language began in the hands, why did it ever leave?

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 43 posts

Re: If language began in the hands, why did it ever leave?

#11

Post by James_Henry »

ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #5

There are a ton of problems with hand gestures. One, they're hard to see and blocked by line of sight (voice isn't.) Two, they require hands to be free to communicate (not always the case, and in situations of survival it's probably not doable at all.) Three, they're limited versus voice. Voice has soft and loud and more sounds can be made than variations of hands. More meaning can be ascribed to a sound.

The article talks about this and then goes on to point out some of the advantages of signing.

The article convincingly argues there's more to this than just your list of problems with hand gestures and the article

Re: If language began in the hands, why did it ever leave?

#12

Post by kerkeslager »

ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #5

There are a ton of problems with hand gestures. One, they're hard to see and blocked by line of sight (voice isn't.) Two, they require hands to be free to communicate (not always the case, and in situations of survival it's probably not doable at all.) Three, they're limited versus voice. Voice has soft and loud and more sounds can be made than variations of hands. More meaning can be ascribed to a sound.

> Three, they're limited versus voice. Voice has soft and loud and more sounds can be made than variations of hands.

I agree with your first two points, but I have to disagree with you on this third point. Mute your computer and check out the way she provides emphasis in this[1], or the way Lydia Callis signs so expressively[2]. Large motions are like loud exclamations, smooth, slow motions are like a crooning voice, etc. People who sign have a "voice"--a style of signing. Signing without any sort of emphasis or expression is the sign equivalent of speaking in a monotone, and can actually make it harder to understand someone, because these elements communicate a lot of meaning, just as intonation and volume communicate meaning in speech.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P_4D26hApY

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5w09Po5bLA

Re: If language began in the hands, why did it ever leave?

#13

Post by adinisom »

ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #5

There are a ton of problems with hand gestures. One, they're hard to see and blocked by line of sight (voice isn't.) Two, they require hands to be free to communicate (not always the case, and in situations of survival it's probably not doable at all.) Three, they're limited versus voice. Voice has soft and loud and more sounds can be made than variations of hands. More meaning can be ascribed to a sound.

The first is an issue: can only be looking at one thing at a time.

The second doesn't seem to come up much in practice. Can eat and sign at the same time unlike voice.

Third isn't true -- signing is more expressive because it takes advantage of space, facial expressions, and signs can be modulated to adjust the meaning. But it almost has to be since the symbol rate is lower than speech.

Re: If language began in the hands, why did it ever leave?

#14

Post by pessimizer »

Alexander Bogdanov, in The Philosophy of Living Experience (1913) posits a social labor-first basis for most human concepts. He thought that language moved from gestures and imitations of the actual sounds that different labor processes made to onomatopoetic words due to the need of a foreperson to coordinate and direct labor being done by groups.

When people work, their hands are occupied, they may not be that near to each other, and they may not be able to look away from their immediate workspace.

I think of construction workers yelling back and forth to each other at a worksite as a glimpse at language being invented.

Re: If language began in the hands, why did it ever leave?

#15

Post by ceejayoz »

James_Henry wrote: post #10
kerkeslager wrote: post #9

One of the things that became really apparent to me during a brief period of dating a hearing-impaired person, was the utility of sign language as a supplement to spoken language. Sign language works better than speech in noisy environments. But this drew my attention to situations where sign language doesn't work: in the dark, around obstacles, when hands are occupied. Guess which situation our ancestors were more f…

The article talks to this. "A second supposed advantage is that speech is better in the dark – that, as Levelt put it, gesture is ‘functionally dead during, on average, 12 hours a day’. This is probably overstated. As Emmorey points out, modern signers get by without much problem, even in dim lighting, and can use tactile forms of signing – that is, signing in contact with another’s skin – in a pinch. Our prehistoric…

> But this kind of ‘rear-view mirror’ reasoning is inherently shaky: we know the outcome and are motivated to explain it."

The other side of this, though, is there's presumably some sort of reason, and these ones are plausible. We should be open to more compelling hypotheses, but waiving away "it's good to have two hands free" with "you can sorta get by with one" is "inherently shaky" too.

Stuff like grinding corn and butchering game are two-hand jobs, for example. It helps to be able to chat while you do it.

Re: If language began in the hands, why did it ever leave?

#16

Post by SilasX »

kerkeslager wrote: post #9

One of the things that became really apparent to me during a brief period of dating a hearing-impaired person, was the utility of sign language as a supplement to spoken language. Sign language works better than speech in noisy environments. But this drew my attention to situations where sign language doesn't work: in the dark, around obstacles, when hands are occupied. Guess which situation our ancestors were more f…

Naive question: I thought seeing in the dark was easier pre-electricity because there was no “light pollution” and everything was lit up uniformly, so you could see well enough outdoors once your eyes adjusted, based on moon- and starlight?

That is, above some threshold, the main barrier is contrast, not dimness?

Re: If language began in the hands, why did it ever leave?

#17

Post by kerkeslager »

ceejayoz wrote: post #15
James_Henry wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article talks to this. "A second supposed advantage is that speech is better in the dark – that, as Levelt put it, gesture is ‘functionally dead during, on average, 12 hours a day’. This is probably overstated. As Emmorey points out, modern signers get by without much problem, even in dim lighting, and can use tactile forms of signing – that is, signing in contact with another’s skin – in a pinch. Our prehistoric…

> But this kind of ‘rear-view mirror’ reasoning is inherently shaky: we know the outcome and are motivated to explain it." The other side of this, though, is there's presumably some sort of reason, and these ones are plausible. We should be open to more compelling hypotheses, but waiving away "it's good to have two hands free" with "you can sorta get by with one" is "inherently shaky" too. Stuff like grinding corn an…

I think you're misunderstanding what the article is claiming.

It's not claiming, "Language started in the hands, but we don't know why it left the hands."

It's claiming, "We can't be sure that language started in the hands, because we don't have an adequate explanation for why it would have ever left if it started there."

Put another way, this article is summarizing the "started in the hands vs. started in the mouth" argument. The article is very much not on the side of "language started in the hands".

Re: If language began in the hands, why did it ever leave?

#18

Post by kerkeslager »

SilasX wrote: post #16
kerkeslager wrote: post #9

One of the things that became really apparent to me during a brief period of dating a hearing-impaired person, was the utility of sign language as a supplement to spoken language. Sign language works better than speech in noisy environments. But this drew my attention to situations where sign language doesn't work: in the dark, around obstacles, when hands are occupied. Guess which situation our ancestors were more f…

Naive question: I thought seeing in the dark was easier pre-electricity because there was no “light pollution” and everything was lit up uniformly, so you could see well enough outdoors once your eyes adjusted, based on moon- and starlight? That is, above some threshold, the main barrier is contrast, not dimness?

That's a good question, and not one I know the answer to.

I've spent a good amount of time out in nature in the dark, in areas with very little light pollution. In these areas, moonlight can definitely be adequate for a lot of things. But under tree or cloud cover, or when the moon is new, the natural dark can be truly debilitating. Now, this could be because my modern vision system never properly adjusts because it's used to light pollution, but I'd at least conclude from this that a lack of light pollution doesn't inherently mean better night vision.

Re: If language began in the hands, why did it ever leave?

#19

Post by jxramos »

Does anyone know any metrics regarding sheer throughput of words? How efficient is ASL in terms of words per minute vs relaxed speech. I'm thinking of something like comparing typing words per minute vs speech recognition words per minute.

Here's some context I quickly found in Wikipedia

    Audiobooks are recommended to be 150–160 words per minute, which is the range that people comfortably hear and vocalize words.[14]
    An average professional typist types usually in speeds of 50 to 80 wpm, while some positions can require 80 to 95 (usually the minimum required for dispatch positions and other time-sensitive typing jobs), and some advanced typists work at speeds above 120 wpm.[4]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Words_per_minute

Re: If language began in the hands, why did it ever leave?

#20

Post by ntsplnkv2 »

war1025 wrote: post #7
ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #5

There are a ton of problems with hand gestures. One, they're hard to see and blocked by line of sight (voice isn't.) Two, they require hands to be free to communicate (not always the case, and in situations of survival it's probably not doable at all.) Three, they're limited versus voice. Voice has soft and loud and more sounds can be made than variations of hands. More meaning can be ascribed to a sound.

True, but deaf people are able to communicate quite effectively with sign language. So it's not like hands are completely worthless for communication. Plus, in certain cases the "hard to see" is an advantage.

Of course - never implied that this was the case, it is a useful tool, but it's easy to see why we primarily use our voices.
Post reply on HN