Started: 4/4/2013
Completed: 8/21/2014
Recommendation: Hard to recommend, this book is tough reading. If you have a strong interest in linguistics and neurology, maybe.
Recommended By: Nobody
Words I looked Up:
bricolage -- construction or creation from a diverse range of available things.
exapted -- the utilization of a structure or feature for a function other than that for which it was developed through natural selection.
preprandial -- done or taken before dinner or lunch
reification -- regarding something abstract as a material thing.
reification fallacy -- within the context of the book, I think this refers to a concept developed by Alfred North Whitehead called "fallacy of misplaced concreteness" which is a huge tangential concept not really necessary to understanding of the book or what the author is trying to say.
Margin Notes:
"So it's very clear that the correct identification of things in the world--correct in terms of the consequences we predict from them, rather than in any sense of absolute truth--is adaptive, in the evolutionary sense of the term"
NOTE: Thinking of words in terms of consequences merits a level of abstraction that a word should not start with, I think.
"For the moment, let's just say that words represent something, somehow."
NOTE: Since words are tied to communication maybe the representation is a communal agreement?
"However, it's clear the brain must represent words somehow, or we couldn't talk."
NOTE: It is impossible to talk without words, but I don't like the assertion that the word must be stored in the brain in order to talk as a multifaceted concept. It seems hard to believe that a child creates a concept internally that handles both forms of the orange. Maybe words link or interact with each other to develop meaning.
"While there aren't objects in the brain, like those in the compartments of the left-luggage office, there are ensembles of neurons that effectively represent objects, analogies, and the other bricolage of our mental life."
NOTE: I think this is an assertion, not a fact. I'm unsure of research into brain injury that shows this. Need to research.
"Precision is accomplished with large committees redundantly trying to do the same task; precision is often an emergent property of enough imprecise neurons."
NOTE: This assertion needs a reference. How would a series of imprecise neurons generate precision? This is explained later in the book but a forward reference would help the reader understand that this is an assertion that will be demonstrated to be true. I find the later arguments compelling, although I think that they fall short of proof.
"Relationships are far more abstract than objects themselves, and there are often layer upon layer of abstractions in our metaphors, undoubtedly aided by syntax's structuring."
NOTE: According to p.15 this is a "word" when coupled with p. 16.
"And the association must not trigger an automatic response, or be limited to a single kind of response."
NOTE: This is the distinguisher.
"That's certainly one of the most crucial differences between words and animal calls."
NOTE: Does this imply a symmetric relationship? Animal calls that do not create an immediate response are words?
"Creole languages come into existence when parents who speak a structureless early-stage pidgin pass it on to their children."
NOTE: Is this true? Renee Apel in "Language Contact and Bilingualism" argues that some Creole languages borrow from other existing languages (Haitian Creole would be an example of a Creole derived from French) which flies in the face of this assertion. It may not be important, however, that all Creole languages come into existence the way the authors describe, but that some do (this form of growth of a Creole language is referred to as a bio-programme).
"Rather than acquiring a vague general capacity to 'seek structure'--how would any creature do that?..."
NOTE: How is that different from emergent pattern matching?
"There is an enormous overlap with oral-facial and hand-arm sequencing, for example, suggesting that improvements in one might have benefited the others, at least at some stage in hominid evolution."
NOTE: Maybe why some need to gesture in order to talk? The argument is later expanded to include the concept of gesturing while talking (particularly in Italy).
"...but each verb has one or more obligatory attributes."
NOTE: Is this a restatement of the "argument structure"?
I had so many notes that I stopped tracking them on this blog.
Review:
This book is formatted as an exchange of letters between the two authors who are from two distinct disciplines. The minute I started reading this book, I regretted letting it languish on the shelf for so many years. On the other hand, as the discussion progressed it became clear that this was as much an exploration for the authors as a coherent statement of how language had developed. The authors actively disagree, but take common areas (or arguments conceded for the value of progress) and carry them out to further analysis. Huge bulks of the book appear to be outright speculation (not uninformed speculation, but speculation none-the-less). There is an extensive argument about whether or not language came as a side-effect of the gathering life style or the hunting life style. To me, this is moot--it had a place in each. Oddly the one making the argument for the gathering life style was the same who argued that parsing of sentences was co-opted from the ability to throw accurately (there was likely some back and forth play between the two capabilities resulting in each enhancing the other). The discussion of proto-language was fascinating.
The facade of the book as a collection of letters became wearing as the book progressed. Each interjected into the other's chapters disrupting the flow to highlight alternative positions. While there is tremendous value in this, it also hampers understanding as it is necessary to put down and pick up a complex argument repeatedly. The effort to link Chompsky's progressing (as they wrote) analysis with archaeology undergoing new discoveries and neurology getting better at refining our understanding of the brain was daunting. Kudos to these two scientists who reached across disciplines to try and formulate a comprehensive understanding of how language works.
Having read
"From Eternity to Here" recently and seen how dissatisfied the author was with the simply plausible argument, I can see how far this argument has to go. For all I know, it has continued to progress well beyond what was presented in the book. Having said all of that, the basic structure of the argument is laid out in rather good detail. It is laid out on a layman's level for the most part. Sure, there is plenty of learning as you go (the key concept would be that of a Darwin Machine), but there are enough analogies and cross-references for the apt reader to come to an understanding of the argument. This is not a beach read, but if you have an interest in language and particularly human language acquisition this is a book well worth the time. If none of that interests you, you will yawn and yawn and yawn...
