Origins of human language in Southern Africa?

[A. Katz]

One of my former interns sent me a reference to this, but it was in the 
general press and not an academic article. If anyone does have access to 
the article itself, I would be very interested in reading it.

I think the idea was, according to the write up for the public, that 
changes in syntax, morphology and phonology are historical, and can be 
seen as step-wise accumulations, and are not explained by Chomskyan theory 
as being motivated by language internal causes.

Also that language changes as culture changes.

    --Aya



On Sat, 16 Apr 2011, john at research.haifa.ac.il wrote:

> I just read an article in the International Herald Tribune about a biologist
> from Auckland University, Quentin Atkinson, who seems to be claiming that human
> language must have originated in the area that Khoisan languages are spoken
> because they have the most different phonemes. I have to say that my initial
> reaction to this is that it was so stupid and naive that it was difficult to
> believe that anyone could take it seriously (or that anyone with a Ph.D. in ANY
> discipline could even have thought of it), but there are references to Don Ringe
> at Penn and Funknet's own Martin Haspelmath which seems to suggest that
> real linguists are taking this seriously. What is the idea supposed to be, that
> traveling over geographical distances somehow causes phonological mergers???
> Maybe the article misrepresented this guy's claims? Any thoughts?
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Quoting Daniel Everett <dan at daneverett.org>:
>
>> Thanks for this, Shannon. Fascinating stuff.
>>
>> My book-length study on culture and language (Cognitive Fire: Language as a
>> Cultural Tool)  will be out from Random House in early 2012.  The folks in NZ
>> are doing some interesting research. Michael Corballis's new book, The
>> Recursive Mind: The Origins of Human Language, Thought, and Civilization
>> (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9424.html) is almost out and looks to be a
>> very worthwhile read.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 14, 2011, at 3:12 PM, s.t. bischoff wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Here is an LA Times story that may be of interest...haven't had a chance to
>>> track down the original Nature article yet...would be curious to hear
>>> reactions.
>>>
>>> Culture trumps biology in language development, study argues Researchers
>>> construct evolutionary trees for four linguistic groups and conclude that
>>> cultures, not innate preferences, drive the language rules humans create –
>>> contrary to the findings of noted linguists Noam Chomsky and Joseph
>>> Greenberg.
>>> Are the rules of language encoded in our
>>>
>>
> genes<http://www.latimes.com/topic/health/human-body/genes-chromosomes-HHA000024.topic>,
>>> or are they primarily shaped by the speaker's cultural context?
>>>
>>> Leading linguistic thinkers have argued that our brains are hard-wired for
>>> languages to follow certain sets of rules. But a team of scientists is
>>> challenging that premise in a study published online Wednesday in the
>>> journal Nature.
>>>
>>> The team used biological tools to construct evolutionary trees for four
>>> language families and found that each of the families followed its own
>>> idiosyncratic structural rules, a sign that humans' language choices are
>>> driven by culture rather than innate preferences.
>>>
>>> The authors say their findings run contrary to the idea of Noam
>>>
>>
> Chomsky<http://www.latimes.com/topic/entertainment/noam-chomsky-PECLB000974.topic>'s
>>> generative grammar, which says the brain has hard and fast ordering rules
>>> for language. They also contradict the "universal rules" of Joseph H.
>>> Greenberg, who said languages tended to choose certain patterns over
>> others.
>>>
>>>
>> http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-language-20110414,0,1473928.story
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Shannon
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Webmail Program of Haifa University
>
>