Philosophy 75 (3):401-421 (2000)
|Abstract||There is both theoretical and experimental reason to suppose that no-one could ever have learned to speak without an environment of language-users. How then did the first language-users learn? Animal communication systems provide no help, since human languages aren't constituted as a natural system of signs, and are essentially recursive and syntactic. Such languages aren't demanded by evolution, since most creatures, even intelligent creatures, manage very well without them. I propose that representations, and even public representations like sculptures, precede full languages, which were devised by the first human children as secret tongues to create fantasy realms inaccessible to their proto-human parents. Language, in brief, is not required for truth-telling or for the convenience of hunters. It is a peculiar modification of public representation, which permits us to construct new public worlds.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Paul Pietrowski (1994). A Defense of Derangement. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 24 (1):95 - 117.
James R. Hurford (1998). The Evolution of Language and Languages. In [Book Chapter] (Unpublished).
Dale Jacquette (2010). Circularity or Lacunae in Tarski's Truth-Schemata. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 19 (3):315-326.
Gregory Radick (2008). Race and Language in the Darwinian Tradition (and What Darwin's Language–Species Parallels Have to Do with It). Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 39 (3):359-370.
Derek Bickerton (2003). Language Evolution Without Evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (6):669-670.
Edward G. Belaga (2009). Discerning the Historical Source of Human Language. Faith Magazine 41 (5):10-12.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads47 ( #27,285 of 722,813 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,541 of 722,813 )
How can I increase my downloads?