NPR's All Things Considered: Today's Episode in the Series, "The Human Edge"
Jim Wilce
jim.wilce at NAU.EDU
Wed Aug 11 22:15:12 UTC 2010
I couldn't agree more with Scott that we need to educate our colleagues
as well as the media. One thing that surprised me about the news story,
however, was exactly its emphasis on language, and not really its
evolution but its nature in the contemporary life of our species. That
is, the story's writer used abundant examples from daily life. Moreover,
if the need was to find someone with expertise in the evolution of
language— or for that matter, if anyone is looking for great articles on
the topics— I suggest (and NPR should have found, perhaps) Philip
Lieberman.
Lieberman, Philip
2007 The Evolution of Human Speech: Its Anatomical and Neural Bases.
Current Anthropology 48(1):39-66.
Anyway, I do think the question is how best to make ourselves more
visible (and audible!) to the media and to our colleagues, and with
that, to me, come the questions, How can we remedy the awful situation
regarding how language is represented in Intro to Anth or Intro to
Cultural Anth textbooks, and when and how we can produce a really hot
linguistic anthropology overview documentary to complement the useful
(but not linganth) documentaries PBS and others have produced (e.g.
PBS's The Mind: Language, and Do You Speak American?).
Jim
Scott F. Kiesling wrote:
> It might be worth noting that the NPR story wasn't centrally (for
> non-linguists anyway) about language, but about general cognitive
> evolution. So that is whay they contacted Brooks, who according to her
> web page "is an important figure in the debate over when, where,
> and why modern Homo sapiens originated." She also has a 2002
> article, which as far as I can tell is basically and argument about
> the breadth and depth of the archeological record used to argue for
> the "human revolution" at 40-50 ka:
>
> McBrearty, S., and A.S. Brooks. "The revolution that wasn't: A new
> interpretation of the origin of modern human behavior," Journal of
> Human Evolution 39(5): 453-563.
>
> So it is in fact her view of language that is a problem, although
> perhaps one shouldn't fault her too much given that it is the dominant
> cultural view and is moreover probably based on what is taught in a
> four-field intro or even an intro to linguistics course (perhaps
> especially in the 60s and 70s when she got her degrees). I wouldn't be
> surprised if it is also the dominant view in most of the language
> evolution literature she and her co-author cite in the article.
>
> So we need to educate the media AND our colleagues. And the media need
> to do their homework, rather than interviewing only one or two people.
>
> SFK
>
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:59:01AM -0400, Anthony Webster wrote:
>
>> From: Anthony Webster <awebster at SIU.EDU>
>> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 11:59:01 -0400
>> To: "LINGANTH at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG"
>> <LINGANTH at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG>
>> Subject: Re: [LINGANTH] NPR's All Things Considered: Today's Episode in
>> the
>> Series, "The Human Edge"
>>
>
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>
>
>> I agree with Jim that it would be very "worthwhile to indicate the kinds of
>> insights that are lost when one lumps all signs together under the 'symbol'
>> category." This lumping together of all signs as "symbols" strikes me, to
>> quote Paul Friedrich, a "debilitating assumption" (and common enough in
>> literature on the evolution of language in some quarters). And one of our
>> jobs should be to call public attention to such debilitating assumptions.
>> Which begs the question that William Leap raises: why are ling anthers not
>> the go-to people for such stories? That seems a quite serious question
>> concerning relevance (ours).
>> best, akw
>>
>
>
>> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Jim Wilce <jim.wilce at nau.edu> wrote:
>>
>
>
>>> Indeed, Bill, thank you very much. This was precisely what concerned me
>>> most, and figures largely in the letter I'm trying to write NPR without
>>> sounding like a representative of lots of folks who are on the side of the
>>> dance hall, not being selected as dance partners. I'm not yet finding that
>>> balance. Actually, in response to Michael, I thought it WOULD BE worthwhile
>>> to indicate the kinds of insights that are lost when one lumps all signs
>>> together under the "symbol" category, the very non-arbitrary social indexes
>>> that were conflated with the arbitrary (symbols).
>>>
>
>
>>> Best,
>>>
>
>
>>> Jim
>>>
>
>
>
>
>>> William Leap wrote:
>>>
>
>
>>>> This isnt really about Allison Brooks. We should be asking ourselves why
>>>> NPR asks someone not trained in anthropological linguistics to talk about
>>>> language, in a situation like this. There is a serious public relations
>>>> issue here , and we come up short every time that issue arises.
>>>>
>
>
>>>> Anciently the AAA's press people would have steered NPR toward the
>>>> Linguistic Anthropologists for such a topic , assuming NPR contacted the AAA
>>>> in the first place for such a task. Anciently, AAA had good relations with
>>>> NPR to anticipate such purposes. Today, who knows.
>>>> Has SLA seriously done any media outreach work in recent years ? Or is
>>>> this too neoliberal for people's tastes. Here's my point. The <<pr >> in NPR
>>>> doesnt stand for <<public radio>> any more and if anthro linguists want to
>>>> talk public impact, we need to be thinking accordingly.
>>>> wlm leap
>>>>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>> Re: NPR's All Things Considered: Today's Episode in the Series, "The Human
>>>> Edge"
>>>>
>
>
>>>> Janina Fenigsen to:
>>>> LINGANTH
>>>> 08/10/2010 08:30 AM
>>>>
>
>
>
>>>> Sent by:
>>>> Linguistic Anthropology Discussion Group <
>>>> LINGANTH at listserv.linguistlist.org>
>>>> Please respond to Janina Fenigsen
>>>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>> "paleo"seems like a generous way of putting it :)
>>>>
>
>
>>>> janina
>>>>
>
>
>>>> On 8/9/10, Alexandre Enkerli <enkerli at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>
>
>
>>>>> Maybe we could engage Brooks in a conversation about language. She
>>>>> seems to be mostly paleo.
>>>>> http://www.gwu.edu/~anth/who/brooks.cfm
>>>>>
>
>
>
>>>>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 22:55, Jim Wilce <jim.wilce at nau.edu> wrote:
>>>>>
>
>
>
>>>>>> Dear colleagues,
>>>>>>
>
>
>>>>>> It is always sad when the media turn to anyone on the planet except us
>>>>>> when
>>>>>> they do a story about human language. Today's example is especially
>>>>>>
>
>
>
>>>>> sad.
>>>>>
>
>
>
>>>>> It
>>>>>
>>>>>> certainly invites letters. You can read Alix Spiegel's story "When Did
>>>>>>
>
>
>
>>>>> We
>>>>>
>
>
>
>>>>> Become Mentally Modern?" at
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129082962.
>>>>>>
>
>
>>>>>> Here's the NPR page for sending comments?
>>>>>> http://help.npr.org/npr/includes/customer/npr/custforms/contactus.aspx
>>>>>>
>
>
>>>>>> Now some nuggets from the story:
>>>>>>
>
>
>>>>>> NPR turned to Alison Brooks (GWU) as their expert on cognitive
>>>>>>
>
>
>>>>> evolution
>>>>>
>
>
>
>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>>> language. " 'Language,' says anthropologist Brooks, 'is entirely
>>>>>>
>
>
>>>>> composed
>>>>>
>
>
>
>>>>> of
>>>>>
>>>>>> these arbitrary symbols. Every sound that comes out of my mouth has
>>>>>>
>
>
>
>>>>> some
>>>>>
>
>
>
>>>>> kind of arbitrary meaning assigned to it,' she says. 'I could just as
>>>>>
>
>
>
>>>>> well
>>>>>
>
>
>
>>>>> be talking to you in another language and making totally different
>>>>>
>
>
>>>>> sounds
>>>>>
>
>
>
>>>>> and saying the same thing.'"
>>>>>
>
>
>>>>>> Here's the story's sophisticated model of communication:
>>>>>>
>
>
>>>>>> "For example, if I say the word "bead" you immediately have a picture
>>>>>>
>
>
>
>>>>> in
>>>>>
>
>
>
>>>>> your mind of what I'm talking about. If I said beads, you'd generate a
>>>>>
>>>>>> slightly different picture in your mind, that I have made your mind
>>>>>>
>
>
>
>>>>> form.
>>>>>
>
>
>
>>>>> If
>>>>>
>>>>>> I said glass beads ? using an adjective to modify the concept ? you'd
>>>>>> immediately see something different than if I said gold beads. In this
>>>>>> way,
>>>>>> I make you think in your mind of a thing that I have in my mind."
>>>>>>
>
>
>
>>>>>> Yours truly,
>>>>>>
>
>
>>>>>> Jim
>>>>>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>> --
>>> Jim Wilce, Professor of Anthropology
>>> Northern Arizona University
>>> http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jmw22/
>>> Editor, Blackwell Studies in Discourse and Culture
>>> Now Available: Language and Emotion
>>> For more information see www.cambridge.org/9780521864176
>>>
> --
> Scott F. Kiesling, PhD
>
> Associate Professor
> Department of Linguistics
> University of Pittsburgh, 2816 CL
> Pittsburgh, PA 15260
> http://www.linguistics.pitt.edu
> Office: +1 412-624-5916
> .
>
>
--
Jim Wilce, Professor of Anthropology
Northern Arizona University
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jmw22/
Editor, Blackwell Studies in Discourse and Culture
Now Available: Language and Emotion
For more information see www.cambridge.org/9780521864176
More information about the Linganth
mailing list