4 ms·

I'd love to hear about recent theories that are substantively different. I'm not aware of any.

Estragon 14y ago
You could check out the first few pages of google scholar for "evolution of language" restricted to "since 2011" for a start. E.g. http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-anthro-081309-145722?journalCode=anthro http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-anthro-...
- akkartik 14y ago
  I was addressing a lay audience like myself, so I was looking for a big picture, not primary sources. It takes more than a google scholar search to distinguish minor tweaks to our understanding from radical changes. Your example isn't freely available, so I have no basis to judge whether it's paying $20 for. Is Symbolic Species now outdated in some respect? Is there a different theory that better explains observations? Please educate rather than flatly disagree or tell me to go get educated.
  - Estragon 14y ago
    Then what was your basis for claiming it's "the current state of the art in language origin theories?"
    - akkartik 14y ago
      That I haven't found anything better or more comprehensive. I think that's what state of the art means, not "less than 1 year old" or some arbitrary time horizon like that. Perhaps I should have said "IMO". I tend to assume that opinion is implied in most statements, especially for something hard to define like "state of the art". Edit: you're right, I was misusing the term (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_art http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_art). It's a lot more concrete than I realized, and it has nothing to do with lay readers. Apologies. Unfortunately I can't update the original. If I could I'd rephrase it as "the most comprehensive story on language evolution for lay readers". It sounds like you don't actually have a different theory or a substantive criticism. Is that correct?
      - Estragon 14y ago
        Judge for yourself. I think you understand what I was saying.

You could check out the first few pages of google scholar for "evolution of language" restricted to "since 2011" for a start. E.g. http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-anthro-081309-145722?journalCode=anthro http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-anthro-...

akkartik 14y ago
I was addressing a lay audience like myself, so I was looking for a big picture, not primary sources. It takes more than a google scholar search to distinguish minor tweaks to our understanding from radical changes. Your example isn't freely available, so I have no basis to judge whether it's paying $20 for. Is Symbolic Species now outdated in some respect? Is there a different theory that better explains observations? Please educate rather than flatly disagree or tell me to go get educated.
- Estragon 14y ago
  Then what was your basis for claiming it's "the current state of the art in language origin theories?"
  - akkartik 14y ago
    That I haven't found anything better or more comprehensive. I think that's what state of the art means, not "less than 1 year old" or some arbitrary time horizon like that. Perhaps I should have said "IMO". I tend to assume that opinion is implied in most statements, especially for something hard to define like "state of the art". Edit: you're right, I was misusing the term (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_art http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_art). It's a lot more concrete than I realized, and it has nothing to do with lay readers. Apologies. Unfortunately I can't update the original. If I could I'd rephrase it as "the most comprehensive story on language evolution for lay readers". It sounds like you don't actually have a different theory or a substantive criticism. Is that correct?
    - Estragon 14y ago
      Judge for yourself. I think you understand what I was saying.