If language began in the hands, why did it ever leave?
1–10 of 43 posts
Re: If language began in the hands, why did it ever leave?
#2I wonder if this is related to why it's easy to learn touch typing while saying the keys out loud.
Re: If language began in the hands, why did it ever leave?
#3> But there is at least one key feature of speech that is harder to dismiss: it takes very little effort. Attempts to measure the caloric expenditures involved in speech report that they are essentially negligible. This is both because the movements involved are so tiny, and because spoken words often hitch a ride on our outgoing breath. (Speaking can be thought of as a way of upcycling an abundant waste-product – air – as it leaves the body.) This is not to say that gesturing or signing is an especially athletic or strenuous endeavour by any means, but it is certainly more expensive than talking – by an order of magnitude at least, Fitch estimates.
Re: If language began in the hands, why did it ever leave?
#4Because you cannot communicate with your hands, and use tools at the same time.
Re: If language began in the hands, why did it ever leave?
#5There 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.
Re: If language began in the hands, why did it ever leave?
#6It never leaves the hands!! At least for us Italians!
We don't speak Italian; we just pretend we have a language so you guys out there don't freak out :)
How do you silence an Italian? Tie his hands.
Re: If language began in the hands, why did it ever leave?
#7There 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.
Re: If language began in the hands, why did it ever leave?
#8Maybe because it could leave at some point. Not overnight, but maybe gradually after primitive language or sounds being bundled with gestures for some time. Considering that humanity were hunter gatherers the main topic was likely animals and the weather. I think it grew out of those campfire situations and planning huntings, map making (drawing scenarios on the ground) and then basically animating it with sounds and signs.
Re: If language began in the hands, why did it ever leave?
#9One 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 frequently confronted with?
EDIT: The article does address this, but I'm not sure I buy it. Maybe it's a function of my limited ability with sign, but I don't think signs pressed against the skin are particularly effective, and while our ancestors may have had fires, the most survival-critical situations could be ones where no light is present. I agree that sign remains extremely useful, but I'm skeptical of the claim, "[I]f language had first built a home in the hands, it would have had no compelling reason to leave. Thus, it must have been spoken from the start."
Re: If language began in the hands, why did it ever leave?
#10One 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 ancestors likely didn’t spend many waking hours in pitch-black. Rather, they would have used fires for warmth, cooking, illumination and protection from predators. And, whether or not there’s anything to Hewes’s palmar depigmentation story, hand movements can certainly be seen by firelight.
"Another advantage of speech, it has been argued, is that it frees the hands for other activities. But, here again, this is likely too swift. Signers don’t seem to have much of a problem with this, using one-handed signs when necessary. And though most of what we think of as gesture takes place in the hands, critical visual signals can also be produced with the head and face – pointing, affirming, questioning. The list of putative advantages of speech goes still further. But this kind of ‘rear-view mirror’ reasoning is inherently shaky: we know the outcome and are motivated to explain it."