Re: THEORY: Re : Re: THEORY: Question about the evolution of language

Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 07/09/99 22:30:36  , Ed a =E9crit :

>=20
>  I agree, Nik, partly because I think that the statement "I don't think
>  the idea of communication would arise" is a bit ridiculous.
> =20
>  Language is only one very specialized form of communication; some
>  researchers have estimated that the vast majority of information
>  actually transmitted in a face-to-face conversation is nonverbal.  And
>  a large amount of nonverbal communication is probably hardwired into
>  the human brain.  Apes do a *lot* of communicating without a
>  language-like symbol-system.  And a lot of what we do with language
>  can be done as well with purely nonverbal means.
> =20
>  I doubt that anyone would "die out" without language.  Their lives
>  would be comparatively impoverished in some ways, and it would be
>  fascinating to see to what degree if at all they reinvented something
>  recognizable as language, but I think it's safe to assume a group of
>  humans who were never taught language *would* communicate and *would*
>  establish some kind of social system.
>=20
indeed. even dumb tv-watchers like me could watch broadcasts about
death-mute people brought up in a secluded environment. they would
obviously recount sequences of facts and infer cause and consequence
from the mere ability that humanity granted them.
words are only one way among others to express inferences,
yet they are by no means their matrix.
stimulation brings intelligence. stimulation yields re-action and
intellectual reaction embodies either in expression or action.
language is one among other means of expression.=20
and expression is society.
=20
>  Ed Heil                                    edheil@postmark.net
>  --------------------------------------------------------------
> =20
mathias