NPR's All Things Considered: Today's Episode in the Series, "The Human Edge"

[Anthony Webster]

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
>



-- 
Anthony K. Webster, Ph.D.
Department of Anthropology
MC 4502
Southern Illinois University at Carbondale
Carbondale, IL 62901
618-453-5027