Re: lexicon

Let me clarify my position.  First, although this is all tangent to my
original point, I'll say where I stand on the precedence thing:

The *ability* to communicate must have preceded culture, because there can be
no culture without communication.  But since there can be no communication
without someone to communicate with, actual communication and culture
probably developed about the same time.

Language, specifically, is an advanced variety of communication.  In
the usual definition it seems to be restricted to humans, though the line
between animal communication and human language is not the great dividing
wall some make it out to be.

Art is an advanced variety of non- or meta-linguistic communication, that
is much more strongly restricted to humans.  Ape paintings and the like
have yet to show much of an artistic penchant in other animals. :)

But none of that is what I was talking about.  The thread to which I was
replying was discussing art as possibly the original motivation for
the development of language.  I argue that this is incredibly unlikely
because of the fundamental differences in, well, how fundamental language
and art are.

The capacity for language is built into our brains; it's an instinct; it's
hardwired.  We're born ready to recognize concepts and categorize them into
groups roughly analogous to nouns, verbs, and prepositions.  We're born
with grammar universals that are shared by every natural language.
Language must have been an incredible survival advantage;
that's the only explanation for its presence as such a fundamental
part of the brain's makeup.  It also must have originated a really really
really long time ago in order to have time to be specialized to the
degree that it has.   Given the time involved, I find it incredibly
unlikely that our first language-using ancestors were sufficiently developed
to be artistic.

No such fundamental blueprints exist for art; art is by its very nature
the ultimate in free expression, refusing to obey set channels or rules.
It is practically indefinable.  And artistic ability varies dramatically
among human individuals, far more than linguistic ability.   The
drive to create is an instinct; art isn't.

Besides, every other medium used for art - painting,
writing, music - was originally utilitarian; only later did people
have the luxury of using these things for art.  I don't see why
language would be any different.

-Mark

Replies