31–40 of 51 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you kidding? The book is 15 years old. I did enjoy it very much in 1997, though.
I'd love to hear about recent theories that are substantively different. I'm not aware of any.
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-anthro-...
The relationship between language and thought is unclear. To be polarising, psychologists believe that language influences thought/culture and linguists believe that thought/culture influences language. There are evidence to support both conclusions, but most of the debate in popular media focuses on examples that are severely misinterpreted. For example, if Language A does not distinguish green and blue, it does not…
If you casually asked a native Chinese speaker "are leaves and the sky the same color?" would they answer differently than if you asked a native English speaker? If so (i.e. if Chinese speakers tend to say Yes while English speakers tend to say No), then I would argue that there's something more going on than simple hue labels, since the labels themselves aren't being asked for or provided.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd love to hear about recent theories that are substantively different. I'm not aware of any.
You could check out the first few pages of google scholar for "evolution of language" restricted to "since 2011" for a start. E.g. http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-anthro-...
Is Symbolic Species now outdated in some respect? Is there a different theory that better explains observations? Please educate rather than flatly disagree or tell me to go get educated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could check out the first few pages of google scholar for "evolution of language" restricted to "since 2011" for a start. E.g. http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-anthro-...
I was addressing a lay audience like myself, so I was looking for a big picture, not primary sources. It takes more than a google scholar search to distinguish minor tweaks to our understanding from radical changes. Your example isn't freely available, so I have no basis to judge whether it's paying $20 for. Is Symbolic Species now outdated in some respect? Is there a different theory that better explains observation…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was addressing a lay audience like myself, so I was looking for a big picture, not primary sources. It takes more than a google scholar search to distinguish minor tweaks to our understanding from radical changes. Your example isn't freely available, so I have no basis to judge whether it's paying $20 for. Is Symbolic Species now outdated in some respect? Is there a different theory that better explains observation…
Then what was your basis for claiming it's "the current state of the art in language origin theories?"
Perhaps I should have said "IMO". I tend to assume that opinion is implied in most statements, especially for something hard to define like "state of the art". Edit: you're right, I was misusing the term (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_art). It's a lot more concrete than I realized, and it has nothing to do with lay readers. Apologies. Unfortunately I can't update the original. If I could I'd rephrase it as "the most comprehensive story on language evolution for lay readers".
It sounds like you don't actually have a different theory or a substantive criticism. Is that correct?
The relationship between language and thought is unclear. To be polarising, psychologists believe that language influences thought/culture and linguists believe that thought/culture influences language. There are evidence to support both conclusions, but most of the debate in popular media focuses on examples that are severely misinterpreted. For example, if Language A does not distinguish green and blue, it does not…
If you casually asked a native Chinese speaker "are leaves and the sky the same color?" would they answer differently than if you asked a native English speaker? If so (i.e. if Chinese speakers tend to say Yes while English speakers tend to say No), then I would argue that there's something more going on than simple hue labels, since the labels themselves aren't being asked for or provided.
If I see a Chinese wearing what I call "aqua-green" clothing, I often ask them "What color sweater are you wearing, blue or green?" They always answer "blue".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you casually asked a native Chinese speaker "are leaves and the sky the same color?" would they answer differently than if you asked a native English speaker? If so (i.e. if Chinese speakers tend to say Yes while English speakers tend to say No), then I would argue that there's something more going on than simple hue labels, since the labels themselves aren't being asked for or provided.
The problem with that test is that the notion of "same" is too fuzzy. If you asked me "are leaves and traffic lights the same color?", I might answer yes. After all, they're both green. On the other hand, I might say no, since one is dark green and the other is bright green. To test if something is going on mentally, it'd be better to take my personal opinions out of the equation. For instance, show a traffic light c…
In English, if you casually ask the color of the sky or the color you would use for water on a map, most people will simply say "blue" even though they could probably detect hue difference if presented printed samples of the two. Accordingly, I think most English speakers would say Yes if casually asked whether the sky is the same color as water on a map. But is that the same response and reasoning you would get if you asked a speaker of a language that doesn't distinguish between blue and green whether the sky and leaves are the same color?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then what was your basis for claiming it's "the current state of the art in language origin theories?"
That I haven't found anything better or more comprehensive. I think that's what state of the art means, not "less than 1 year old" or some arbitrary time horizon like that. Perhaps I should have said "IMO". I tend to assume that opinion is implied in most statements, especially for something hard to define like "state of the art". Edit : you're right, I was misusing the term ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_th…
The relationship between language and thought is unclear. To be polarising, psychologists believe that language influences thought/culture and linguists believe that thought/culture influences language. There are evidence to support both conclusions, but most of the debate in popular media focuses on examples that are severely misinterpreted. For example, if Language A does not distinguish green and blue, it does not…
True, but just to be clear: In the first link in the article it's shown how people speaking languages with no blue/green distinction are significantly slower at selecting the 'odd one out' when given a set of blue shapes and one green shape. Furthermore, this effect is only significant in their right visual field, whose images are processed by the left (more language adept) part of the brain.