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

Tue Aug 10 16:39:29 UTC 2010

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