Bickerton

oops :( meant Falk's article

I'm currently having issues loading more than the first three pages. Is anyone else experiencing that? -Bryan

send me ur email and i can try to send it to you as a pdf -Ashley

Heres some things shooting around the top of my head from the reading, lets start with some definitions:


 * Speech**- the expression of or the ability to express thoughts and feelings by articulate sounds


 * Language**- the method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured and conventional way

• the successful conveying or sharing of ideas and feelings
 * Communication-** the imparting or exchanging of information or news

2 a particular mode in which something exists or is experienced or expressed. • a particular method or procedure : //they addressed questions concerning the modalities of Soviet troop withdrawals. // • a particular form of sensory perception : : // the visual and auditory modalities. // • (in medicine, particularly homeopathy ) a symptom or pattern that aids in diagnosis: : // The modality of "worse with activity" is associated with Rhus Tox. //
 * Modality**- 1 modal quality : // the harmony had a touch of modality. //

Falk talks about her research in primates showing the ability for language, much like our ancestors would have began. She shows this with examples of chimpanzees and their interactions in every day life. (p493) "For example, hoos are uttered to retrieve infants for travel and soft grunts may be exchanged when two or more familiar chimpanzees, especially family members, are foraging or traveling together."

Bickerton negates Falk's work because he says that speech is not language. (p504) "Speech, like signing, is a modality. Language is a system of expression, one that may function by means of speech, sign, morse code, talking drums, smoke signals, naval flags, and, doubtless, modalities not yet conceived; or it may keep its productions with in the individuals brain, not employing any modality at all."

Dilkes and Platek dont negate Falk's research, they merely state that there are other possibilities that haven't yet been explored. (p511) "the primary difference between signed and spoken language is that sign relies 'on spatial contrasts while speech is linear and non spacial.'" "A possible explanation for why deaf children come to create linguistically oriented gesture and hearing children do not, may relate to the notion that gesture needs to take on grammatical properties only when it has to carry the full burden of communication."

For me its interesting to hear all these many sides of the story. I wonder how "creole like" the deaf sign language that Dilkes and Platek mention. Though it still leaves me wondering where we gained language. How it embedded itself in our genes and is just there for when we need it to communicate with others.

Addison

I found it highly interesting at the end of Falk's article that in her conclusion she quickly brings to light a notion of a connection between music, the origin of language or speech, and primordial forces lingering within the cosmos left over from the big bang. I Find this highly interesting for it ties closely into the idea of cymatics and how sound can dictate form. If by chance there was a genetic connection to the origin of language and a protolanguage did indeed exist could then it have been related to the tonal qualities various forms have as their underlying cymatic character.

I also found further support towards this in the idea that speech arises out of tonality which most often in humans and other creatures arises from emotional expression which Falk also mentions in her article. And although it was refuted by some critiques that speech is not language, language does indeed arise from speech and therefore it would be unwise for a someone to refute something of this nature as the two are intimately interconnected.

Look forward to seeing yall in class!

I thought it was interesting how Falk's discussed mother's of 3- to 4- month old infants over exaggerate their facial expressions and motherese (baby talk to them). It used to bug me when people would (especially women) talk in really high pitched voices to babies and make extremely silly faces (that I never see them make except in front of a baby). Yet, when I'm around my 1 year old niece I find myself doing the same thing and it feels more weird to not act silly and talk in a high pitch than to act silly around infants and toddlers. Also, I used to think people talked in baby talk because we see babies as "cute" and when discussing cute things (in my experience, especially with women) people talk in a high pitch. If I hear my friend say "that purse is cute" in a bland tone I don't believe her but if she says it in a silly higher pitch tone I tend to believe her.