linguistlist.org>
Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karenlinguistlist.org>
aol.com>Thanks Dan. By the way, on the issue of losers and consciousness- neoteny, by rolling back evolutionarily selected specializations and making the character of the organismal physiology and/or behavioral patterns more general, actually bypasses much of the penny-ante nonsense that pushes organisms into increasingly narrow corners- its a way of exiting the rat-race, if only for a while. How many of you reading this have had to contend with the mind-breaking effects of office politics- people fighting over the minutest turf? And for what? This is what happens when the big issues are fixed, and finer details are all that's left to argue over. Hi nu versus lo nu. Fractal competition. Much of the neoteny I'm familiar with seems to push bigger brains in place of brawn- consider the rise of motile chordates from sessile, filter-feeding ancestors (someone once wrote that the reason carnivores tend to be more intelligent than herbivores could be found in considering how much mind it takes to sneak up on a leaf). Bigger brains associate with more learning. And learning is generally more important in the younger life stages of animals. We are essentially giant infants from this viewpoint, though age still manages for most of us to eventually rigidify behavior. And for younger people the world is usually filled with awe and mystery- infants have a great deal of REM activity as they integrate new stuff (while many of us older folks would love to have a nice nocturnal vacation). Adults progressively go autopilot, just never to the extent many animals reach (especially the lower down you go). Now consider birth- we are brought into the world in a much less capable state than lower animals (almost as if we were simian marsupials, with caring families and Hillarian villages instead of a pouch to make up the difference in development). Everything has been pushed back (including our faces ;-). If this keeps up we might find ourselves caring for fertilized zygotes outside the womb (oops, I forgot- we're almost there now!). Maybe its time to reconsider tadpoles. Jess Tauber zylogyMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
wanadoo.es>Hola, buenas! I am a bit astonished at the interest (and passion!) this particular discussion is arising among fellow linguists. It shows that the issues are indeed vital for many, which is something to be happy about --at least, if you enjoy debating as I do. As I have already answered the original message by my e-mail friend, Dan Moonhak, I will refrain from participating in the debate until someone has questions about my ideas. However, I perceive a certain assumption in many of the participants which makes me wonder. Maybe I am wrong, but it seems that while the "mind-as-a-slate" holistic crew has a speculative, but well organised story about the possible *evolution* of the human language (in many cases, a very interesting theory too), my crew, namely the mentalist innate-modular one, thinks that, in our frame of thought, no such speculation exists, let alone an interesting and plausible one. Well, in order to help people to overcome this "complex", if indeed it exists outside my mind, they could go to Dan Sperber's page, http://www.dan.sperber.com where, among very intersting papers, they can find one by Gloria Origgi and himself called "Evolution, communication and the proper function of language" which is just that sort of speculative theory in our own mentalistic frame. De nada, y hasta la proxima! Jose Luis Guijarro Morales Facultad de Filosofia y Letras Avda. Gomez Ulla, 1 11003 Cadiz (Espa�a) Tel. +34 956 015526 Fax. +34 956 015501 joseluis.guijarroMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue