3 ms·
The article talks to this. "A second supposed advantage is that speech is better in the dark – that, as Levelt put it, gesture is ‘functionally dead during, on
by James_Henry 6y ago
The article talks to this.
"A second supposed advantage is that speech is better in the dark – that, as Levelt put it, gesture is ‘functionally dead during, on average, 12 hours a day’. This is probably overstated. As Emmorey points out, modern signers get by without much problem, even in dim lighting, and can use tactile forms of signing – that is, signing in contact with another’s skin – in a pinch. Our prehistoric ancestors likely didn’t spend many waking hours in pitch-black. Rather, they would have used fires for warmth, cooking, illumination and protection from predators. And, whether or not there’s anything to Hewes’s palmar depigmentation story, hand movements can certainly be seen by firelight.
"Another advantage of speech, it has been argued, is that it frees the hands for other activities. But, here again, this is likely too swift. Signers don’t seem to have much of a problem with this, using one-handed signs when necessary. And though most of what we think of as gesture takes place in the hands, critical visual signals can also be produced with the head and face – pointing, affirming, questioning. The list of putative advantages of speech goes still further. But this kind of ‘rear-view mirror’ reasoning is inherently shaky: we know the outcome and are motivated to explain it."
- ceejayoz 6y ago> But this kind of ‘rear-view mirror’ reasoning is inherently shaky: we know the outcome and are motivated to explain it." The other side of this, though, is there's presumably some sort of reason, and these ones are plausible. We should be open to more compelling hypotheses, but waiving away "it's good to have two hands free" with "you can sorta get by with one" is "inherently shaky" too. Stuff like grinding corn and butchering game are two-hand jobs, for example. It helps to be able to chat while you do it.
- kerkeslager 6y agoI think you're misunderstanding what the article is claiming. It's not claiming, "Language started in the hands, but we don't know why it left the hands." It's claiming, "We can't be sure that language started in the hands, because we don't have an adequate explanation for why it would have ever left if it started there." Put another way, this article is summarizing the "started in the hands vs. started in the mouth" argument. The article is very much not on the side of "language started in the hands".
- kqr 6y agoGrinding corn and butchering game are also activities that would be relatively uncommon for the foraging humans that started communicating with more complexity.
- tgv 6y agoSpeech must have evolved before cooking.