If language began in the hands, why did it ever leave? • Hacker News Board

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

#31

Post by SilasX » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 5:55 PM UTC

tgv wrote: post #28

SilasX wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Then you should be able to see even better now, since there is more light. The places I've visited where light pollution is low, are really, really dark at night.

Maybe my point wasn't clear? To the extent that we have difficulty seeing unassisted in dark today, it's because:

1) There are many artificial sources of light, which creates a sharp contrast. If the stuff near those sources is illuminated, everything else becomes harder to see.

2) You spend very little time outside, so even when there isn't a sharp contrast, you haven't waited for your eyes to adjust.

Obviously, given artificial illumination where we want it, stuff is easier to see.

See sibling reply about navigating by moonlight remote places.

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

#32

Post by tgv » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 6:07 PM UTC

SilasX wrote: post #31

tgv wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you should be able to see even better now, since there is more light. The places I've visited where light pollution is low, are really, really dark at night.

Maybe my point wasn't clear? To the extent that we have difficulty seeing unassisted in dark today, it's because: 1) There are many artificial sources of light, which creates a sharp contrast. If the stuff near those sources is illuminated, everything else becomes harder to see. 2) You spend very little time outside, so even when there isn't a sharp contrast, you haven't waited for your eyes to adjust. Obviously, giv…

Ad 1. Background light pollution doesn't create a sharp contrast. But it's irrelevant, since that's something so recent that it can't have any influence on this topic.

2. Where it's really dark, you can't see. Period. No amount of waiting will help.

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

#33

Post by SilasX » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 6:12 PM UTC

tgv wrote: post #32

SilasX wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe my point wasn't clear? To the extent that we have difficulty seeing unassisted in dark today, it's because: 1) There are many artificial sources of light, which creates a sharp contrast. If the stuff near those sources is illuminated, everything else becomes harder to see. 2) You spend very little time outside, so even when there isn't a sharp contrast, you haven't waited for your eyes to adjust. Obviously, giv…

Ad 1. Background light pollution doesn't create a sharp contrast. But it's irrelevant, since that's something so recent that it can't have any influence on this topic. 2. Where it's really dark, you can't see. Period. No amount of waiting will help.

1. Yes, that's why I put "light pollution" in quotes with a clarification, because I wasn't using it in the sense it's generally used (the kind that affects your ability to see stars), and describing a different mode of pollution (of pockets of light that leave other areas much darker and thus hard to see because of the high contrast).

2. Hence the last paragraph of my original post, that you do need some minimum level of light. I was specifically speaking about conditions above some minimal threshold.

Is there a better way I could have said either of those things so you wouldn't miss them?

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

#34

Post by rikroots » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 7:13 PM UTC

i_love_lamp wrote: post #24

I do not believe language began in the hands for a simpler reason than I'm seeing in the rest of the comments here. Here's my armchair philosophy: How do you begin a conversation? You first have to get the other person's attention. You can't get someone's attention with sign language if they are not looking at you. Necessity breeds invention, and the ultimate necessity is survival. If a chimp sees a pack of hyenas co…

If we're going for some armchair philosophy (with added tinfoil hat) - I agree with all your points. I'll also claim that language developed from vocalisations because humans are excellent at mimicking the sounds they hear around them, and they developed this mimicking ability mainly to impress members of the other sex and, well, the rest is history.

Totally unprovable, of course.

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

#35

Post by kqr » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 7:15 PM UTC

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…

Grinding corn and butchering game are also activities that would be relatively uncommon for the foraging humans that started communicating with more complexity.

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

#36

Post by michaelcampbell » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 7:40 PM UTC

totetsu wrote: post #2

I wonder if this is related to why it's easy to learn touch typing while saying the keys out loud.

I didn't know it was. Can you direct me to some research there; I'm curious about that now.

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

#37

Post by kerkeslager » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 10:30 PM UTC

SilasX wrote: post #31

tgv wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you should be able to see even better now, since there is more light. The places I've visited where light pollution is low, are really, really dark at night.

Maybe my point wasn't clear? To the extent that we have difficulty seeing unassisted in dark today, it's because: 1) There are many artificial sources of light, which creates a sharp contrast. If the stuff near those sources is illuminated, everything else becomes harder to see. 2) You spend very little time outside, so even when there isn't a sharp contrast, you haven't waited for your eyes to adjust. Obviously, giv…

I don't think the "pockets of light" phenomenon is unique to light-polluted areas. In Cherry Springs[1] if there's a full moon and your eyes are adjusted to looking at things bathed in moonlight, you're still not going to be able to see things underneath trees. Natural light isn't somehow more diffuse: if anything it creates more striking shadows because the light is coming primarily from a single source.

I'm honestly not sure where you're getting this idea from, or why you're stating it as fact. Are you just unintentionally overstating a hypothesis here? Or do you have some information that I don't? I'm certainly not an expert on how sight works, but nothing from my experience in the wilderness matches what you're saying.

[1] https://cherryspringsstatepark.com/

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

#38

Post by woodandsteel » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 10:43 PM UTC

t0mbstone wrote: post #22

Because people like to talk even when they are holding things. Duh.

Good point. Like suppose some men are coming back from a successful hunt, and each of them is using both hands to carry a limb cut off from a large animal.

Another case: when two people are swimming in deep water.

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

#39

Post by woodandsteel » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 10:45 PM UTC

tgv wrote: post #30

adrianmonk wrote: post #26

The article mentions some possible advantages of speech over gestures: (1) Abstractness (which it debunks, I think successfully). (2) Better in the dark. (3) Frees the hands. (4) Energy usage. There are some others I can think of, too: (5) Not only does it free the hands of the speaker, it frees the eyes of the listener. I can only look in one direction at a time. If you're trying to communicate to me about a task I'…

(8) Animals communicate mainly via sound. Most don't even have hands.

(9) Talking in a group. It seems to me with gestures you can understand only one person at a time. Though maybe deaf people who use sign language have a good way to handle this.

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

#40

Post by woodandsteel » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 10:48 PM UTC

Here's something else that seems to support the gesture-first hypothesis. A friend of mine worked in an institute for severely developmentally children. Many had little or no spoken linguistic ability, but most of them had a considerable ability to learn sign language. That makes me think gesturing came first.