How did human language originate?

[untermensche]

Monkey vocal tracts are speech-ready

For four decades, the inability of nonhuman primates to produce human speech sounds has been claimed to stem from limitations in their vocal tract anatomy, a conclusion based on plaster casts made from the vocal tract of a monkey cadaver. We used x-ray videos to quantify vocal tract dynamics in living macaques during vocalization, facial displays, and feeding. We demonstrate that the macaque vocal tract could easily produce an adequate range of speech sounds to support spoken language, showing that previous techniques based on postmortem samples drastically underestimated primate vocal capabilities. Our findings imply that the evolution of human speech capabilities required neural changes rather than modifications of vocal anatomy. Macaques have a speech-ready vocal tract but lack a speech-ready brain to control it.

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/12/e1600723

There are a lot of myths out there about language.

 

[untermensche]

No the studies aren't after the fact. The analyses in the studies leading to markers are ad hoc, after the fact, apparent, based on face value, they are not based on determined value. You've just read example of real scientific intellect. One does not build theory on correlation based at personal examination. IOW where is the experiment, the operations, the limitations, the controls?

What specific research are you referring to?

Point it out.

Or are you just spewing prejudices?

 

[fromderinside]

Crow calling the Mocking bird black are you?

I've provided many reference articles and you've waved your hands. I'd like to see less waving and more articles from you first.

I understand most kings are self proclaimed, but, you sir, have no kingly clothes at all. I believe there's a fairy tail about you.

 

[untermensche]

I'll explain it to you.

Chomsky claims there are inherent hierarchical "rules" that govern language production and expression. What is called "UG"

He of course finds these "rules" in English.

The question is: Are these "rules" inherent to any other language?

So one by one other languages are looked at and sure enough they ALL follow the same hierarchical "rules", with a few variations on themes. I think right now there is one primitive language that is not very well understood where some are claiming the "rules" are not being followed. This is far from a settled argument however. 99.9% of the examined evidence agrees with Chomsky.

There is nothing post hoc about it. The hierarchical "rules" are put forth first and the language examined second. And it is certainly falsifiable.

Every language looked at could falsify the hypothesis.

If they do not follow these "hierarchical" rules they falsify the hypothesis. Simple as that.

Your criticism is absurd.

 

[fromderinside]

Gee. Prophesying hierarchical rules then going out observing in field studies or book review studies, then with a lot of magic thinking, finding them is not something anyone would consider 99.9% anything. Most call it pseudoscience. Trying to fit that batch of busted eggs into an evolutionary carton is way beyond believable.

The idea is start with what is known, try to fit new findings into that model. When finding you can't fit it it the threshold becomes very high. Now one has to research what composed evolutinary theory and show how your model fits into it. Failing that and ranting is not permitted.

 

[Juma]

For four decades, the inability of nonhuman primates to produce human speech sounds has been claimed to stem from limitations in their vocal tract anatomy, a conclusion based on plaster casts made from the vocal tract of a monkey cadaver. We used x-ray videos to quantify vocal tract dynamics in living macaques during vocalization, facial displays, and feeding. We demonstrate that the macaque vocal tract could easily produce an adequate range of speech sounds to support spoken language, showing that previous techniques based on postmortem samples drastically underestimated primate vocal capabilities. Our findings imply that the evolution of human speech capabilities required neural changes rather than modifications of vocal anatomy. Macaques have a speech-ready vocal tract but lack a speech-ready brain to control it.

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/12/e1600723

There are a lot of myths out there about language.

no, they lack the exact control needed for using their vocal tracts for communication.

 

[untermensche]

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/12/e1600723

There are a lot of myths out there about language.

no, they lack the exact control needed for using their vocal tracts for communication.

Nope.

What they lack is the language capacity and practice.

They lack the mental aspects of language, not the physical ability to make the same sounds we do.

 

[untermensche]

Gee. Prophesying hierarchical rules then going out observing in field studies or book review studies, then with a lot of magic thinking, finding them is not something anyone would consider 99.9% anything. Most call it pseudoscience. Trying to fit that batch of busted eggs into an evolutionary carton is way beyond believable.

The idea is start with what is known, try to fit new findings into that model. When finding you can't fit it it the threshold becomes very high. Now one has to research what composed evolutinary theory and show how your model fits into it. Failing that and ranting is not permitted.

Nobody but an idiot would call it pseudoscience.

And this IS known. It is as known as much as anything is known.

Human language has hierarchical "rules" that allow for comprehension.

Without them no sentence would make any sense to us.

We would have nothing to differentiate any aspect of it.

Every sentence would be as meaningless as the sounds of some birds and whales are to us now.

 

[bilby]

Gee. Prophesying hierarchical rules then going out observing in field studies or book review studies, then with a lot of magic thinking, finding them is not something anyone would consider 99.9% anything. Most call it pseudoscience. Trying to fit that batch of busted eggs into an evolutionary carton is way beyond believable.

The idea is start with what is known, try to fit new findings into that model. When finding you can't fit it it the threshold becomes very high. Now one has to research what composed evolutinary theory and show how your model fits into it. Failing that and ranting is not permitted.

Nobody but an idiot would call it pseudoscience.

And this IS known. It is as known as much as anything is known.

Human language has hierarchical "rules" that allow for comprehension.

Without them no sentence would make any sense to us.

We would have nothing to differentiate any aspect of it.

Every sentence would be as meaningless as the sounds of some birds and whales are to us now.

Huh?

Nuh-uh.

 

[untermensche]

Nobody but an idiot would call it pseudoscience.

And this IS known. It is as known as much as anything is known.

Human language has hierarchical "rules" that allow for comprehension.

Without them no sentence would make any sense to us.

We would have nothing to differentiate any aspect of it.

Every sentence would be as meaningless as the sounds of some birds and whales are to us now.

Huh?

Nuh-uh.

You can only say that because you have a language capacity.

Without it humans would be like dogs and chimps.

Able to differentiate a few individual sounds but not able to understand a string of words. A string of sound.

The reason a string of human sound can make sense to any human is because of the language capacity.

Without it every string of sound would be as meaningless to us as the string of sound made by some song birds or some whales.

 

[bilby]

Huh?

Nuh-uh.

You can only say that because you have a language capacity.

Without it humans would be like dogs and chimps.

Able to differentiate a few individual sounds but not able to understand a string of words. A string of sound.

The reason a string of human sound can make sense to any human is because of the language capacity.

Without it every string of sound would be as meaningless to us as the string of sound made by some song birds or some whales.

Humans ARE like dogs, and even more like chimps - indeed a strong case can be made that humans are one of three currently extant chimpanzee species.

You, sir, are seriously deficient in humility, and it is leading you to reach dreadfully flawed conclusions on this and many other subjects.

 

[untermensche]

You can only say that because you have a language capacity.

Without it humans would be like dogs and chimps.

Able to differentiate a few individual sounds but not able to understand a string of words. A string of sound.

The reason a string of human sound can make sense to any human is because of the language capacity.

Without it every string of sound would be as meaningless to us as the string of sound made by some song birds or some whales.

Humans ARE like dogs, and even more like chimps - indeed a strong case can be made that humans are one of three currently extant chimpanzee species.

You, sir, are seriously deficient in humility, and it is leading you to reach dreadfully flawed conclusions on this and many other subjects.

This is not any kind of response to my comments.

For a human to acquire a "language" it has to be able to somehow pick out which sounds it hears are language and which are not.

Extremely young children do this.

If they did not have an underlying language capacity this would be impossible.

Chimps and bonobos clearly do not have this capacity. And it is not a problem with their ability to vocalize. It is a problem in their brains. They lack a language capacity.

 

[bilby]

Humans ARE like dogs, and even more like chimps - indeed a strong case can be made that humans are one of three currently extant chimpanzee species.

You, sir, are seriously deficient in humility, and it is leading you to reach dreadfully flawed conclusions on this and many other subjects.

This is not any kind of response to my comments.

I think that if you check again, you will find that it's the written kind, as posted on an Internet discussion board.

Still, at least you are being consistent in your confident assertion of blatantly false statements.

Apparently consistency is sometimes a good thing.

 

[fromderinside]

Gee. Prophesying hierarchical rules then going out observing in field studies or book review studies, then with a lot of magic thinking, finding them is not something anyone would consider 99.9% anything. Most call it pseudoscience. Trying to fit that batch of busted eggs into an evolutionary carton is way beyond believable.

The idea is start with what is known, try to fit new findings into that model. When finding you can't fit it it the threshold becomes very high. Now one has to research what composed evolutinary theory and show how your model fits into it. Failing that and ranting is not permitted.

Nobody but an idiot would call it pseudoscience.

And this IS known. It is as known as much as anything is known.

Human language has hierarchical "rules" that allow for comprehension.

Without them no sentence would make any sense to us.

We would have nothing to differentiate any aspect of it.

Every sentence would be as meaningless as the sounds of some birds and whales are to us now.

I was going to introduce the notion of learning sequence of object, pivot object, object pivot target. bilby did such a good job blowing you up I'm just going to sit on the sideline and watch you squirm for a while.

 

[untermensche]

This is not any kind of response to my comments.

I think that if you check again, you will find that it's the written kind, as posted on an Internet discussion board.

Still, at least you are being consistent in your confident assertion of blatantly false statements.

Apparently consistency is sometimes a good thing.

It is words but not any kind of response to my points.

Saying dogs are like humans is not any kind of response. It is nonsense.

In terms of language they are nothing like humans.

- - - Updated - - -

I was going to introduce the notion of learning sequence of object, pivot object, object pivot target. bilby did such a good job blowing you up I'm just going to sit on the sideline and watch you squirm for a while.

When you can explain the universal hierarchical nature of human language come back.

Until then you have nothing.

Hierarchical understandings cannot arise from linear presentations.

 

[bilby]

I think that if you check again, you will find that it's the written kind, as posted on an Internet discussion board.

Still, at least you are being consistent in your confident assertion of blatantly false statements.

Apparently consistency is sometimes a good thing.

It is words but not any kind of response to my points.

Saying dogs are like humans is not any kind of response. It is nonsense.

In terms of language they are nothing like humans.

- - - Updated - - -

I was going to introduce the notion of learning sequence of object, pivot object, object pivot target. bilby did such a good job blowing you up I'm just going to sit on the sideline and watch you squirm for a while.

When you can explain the universal hierarchical nature of human language come back.

Until then you have nothing.

Hierarchical understandings cannot arise from linear presentations.

Nature abhors a vacuum.

See? I can make incorrect assertions in bold too!

What goes up, must come down.

This is fun!

Human life cannot abide at speeds in excess of twenty five miles per hour.

I wonder what the scientific community are going to do, now that I have made all these things true by posting them in bold on the Internet?

 

[untermensche]

It is words but not any kind of response to my points.

Saying dogs are like humans is not any kind of response. It is nonsense.

In terms of language they are nothing like humans.

- - - Updated - - -

I was going to introduce the notion of learning sequence of object, pivot object, object pivot target. bilby did such a good job blowing you up I'm just going to sit on the sideline and watch you squirm for a while.

When you can explain the universal hierarchical nature of human language come back.

Until then you have nothing.

Hierarchical understandings cannot arise from linear presentations.

Nature abhors a vacuum.

See? I can make incorrect assertions in bold too!

What goes up, must come down.

This is fun!

Human life cannot abide at speeds in excess of twenty five miles per hour.

I wonder what the scientific community are going to do, now that I have made all these things true by posting them in bold on the Internet?

I'm beginning to see your point about dogs.

Some humans ARE as dumb as dogs.

That you can't see the significance of the statement is of course not in the least surprising.

 

[bilby]

It is words but not any kind of response to my points.

Saying dogs are like humans is not any kind of response. It is nonsense.

In terms of language they are nothing like humans.

- - - Updated - - -

I was going to introduce the notion of learning sequence of object, pivot object, object pivot target. bilby did such a good job blowing you up I'm just going to sit on the sideline and watch you squirm for a while.

When you can explain the universal hierarchical nature of human language come back.

Until then you have nothing.

Hierarchical understandings cannot arise from linear presentations.

Nature abhors a vacuum.

See? I can make incorrect assertions in bold too!

What goes up, must come down.

This is fun!

Human life cannot abide at speeds in excess of twenty five miles per hour.

I wonder what the scientific community are going to do, now that I have made all these things true by posting them in bold on the Internet?

I'm beginning to see your point about dogs.

Some humans ARE as dumb as dogs.

That you can't see the significance of the statement is of course not in the least surprising.

I wish that some of the contributors to this forum were as smart as dogs.

 

[untermensche]

I wish that some of the contributors to this forum were as smart as dogs.

So what is your point again about linear presentations creating a hierarchical system of "rules"?

 

[bilby]

I wish that some of the contributors to this forum were as smart as dogs.

So what is your point again about linear presentations creating a hierarchical system of "rules"?

My point is that you haven't demonstrated the factuality of your claim (unless you genuinely consider bold to be proof); and that you cannot, because you are simply, and laughably, wrong.

The existence of relational databases that can run on a single CPU is a clear demonstration that what you assert to be impossible is actually happening.

You haven't done your homework, and it shows.