NPR's All Things Considered: Today's Episode in the Series, "The Human Edge"
Laura M. Ahearn
ahearn at RCI.RUTGERS.EDU
Wed Aug 11 22:38:07 UTC 2010
As it so happens, on my way home today, I heard a piece on NPR's All
Things Considered about how humans are physiologically able to talk, and
they did have Philip Lieberman on. Here's the link:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129083762
But all the points made by Jim and others still hold...
Laura
Jim Wilce wrote:
> 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
>> .
>>
>>
>
>
--
*******************************************
Laura M. Ahearn
Associate Professor
Acting Chair, July 2010 to January 2011
Graduate Program Director, January 2011 - July 2012
Department of Anthropology
Rutgers University
131 George Street
New Brunswick, NJ 08901
(732) 932-5298
http://anthro.rutgers.edu/faculty
*******************************************
More information about the Linganth
mailing list