This
is in my head and I think I need to get it out before I can continue
doing monsters.
Sub-scientific rambling and nothing to do with RPG's below
Arguing
with Noisms a few weeks ago he said (if I remember correctly) that no
language can exist without syntax. I understood this as:- For the
ceaseless flow of natural experience to be divided into abstracted
parts and used to communicate, then there must be a structure within
which to arrange these parts. (this may not be what he meant)
I
am assuming a specific pattern of development for human language. I
have read about the transformation from oral to written
communication. Patterns of oral and written remembering and
abstraction interact as one method slowly supersedes the other.
Written culture grows within oral culture and uses it's patterns.
Eventually, like a thing escaping a petri dish, it explodes and
becomes the dominant pattern of memory. They way we write changes the
way we speak. They swap places and, instead of oral culture having
written culture inside it, a written world carries a fading oral
tracery in stuff like music and patterns of humour. Once, the song
would have outweighed the bureaucratic form as a symbol of authority
and intent, literally. Now its the other way around.
So
I imagine a similar exchange with movement. I think oral culture took
over from a movement culture. I do not mean a culture of sign
language and silence, but one in which the way you move carries the
dominant information and the sound you make goes along on top to add
inflection and mild precision.
I
think we learnt our movement-words and syntax from animals because
they occupy a special position in our world.
To
provide this syntax a phenomena must be clearly definable against the
endless flow of natural life. Weather and trees and seas and stars
and the sun all move but they do not carry the right kind of
information for humans to pick out and use.
I
believe other people also fail to carry the right information. We are
too close to ourselves and each other. We burn too brightly in the
mind for us to reduce ourselves to abstracts. We are also irregular.
You cant make a regular language by observing an intelligent being
who is also observing you at the same time. Its too complex. We did
not draw human forms for a long long time after we started painting
animals. We did not make human faces for a long time after that. It
that because humanity was not important to us? I think the inner
lives and presence of other people swam in our vision like a flame
held to close to the face. We could not see it.
Animals.
We were close to them. We observed them. Needed them. Our ability to
track and persistence-hunt meant we had a complex theory-of-mind for
them which was reinforced by hunting success. They are distinct from
the flow of nature. Clearly their own thing. And they move. They move
in particular ways, in particular patterns. They repeat the patterns
again and again. Mimicking thee patterns comes naturally to use.
Those mirror-neurones designed for social development can be hacked
to mirror other things.
Each
animal has a kind of active language embodied in its movements.
Watching a lion hunt is like seeing a sentence encoded in space and
time. You do not know exactly what will happen but you know the
pattern. It will end only two ways. A predictable series of signs.
I
imagine early humans learning the hunting movements of a lion,
mimicking them before the group, and then abruptly, right at the end,
just at the 'lion' is about to pounce, substituting the signature
move of some other creature. The lion leaps and turns into a bird.
The bird nests and has chicks. It flies off and picks up an elephant
to feed to them. Like a kind of kinetic joke. Mixing and matching
well known kinetic signs to describe something that could never
happen in the original arrangements of those signs.
So
it would go:-
Natural
flow> Movement>sounds/music/language>written word>?
Rrrrrrronto-BOSH!!!!!
ReplyDeleteTeeeeglo CARbon!
I think that the part that complicates all of this is that there is a biological component of language. Our evolutionary ancestors and relatives didn't have the brains or bodies to use language like we do today. It may not be that natural flow begets movement begets sound/music/language, but that those things happened in that order because whatever human ancestor was around at that time didn't have the cognition to do anything more. So like, one of our most distant ancestors could only handle natural flow, but the next species that arose had the physiological equipment for communication through movement, and then the next species had sounds/music/language, just because it had the brain and body for it.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure about the progression from natural flow to written word. Writing systems are not the default for language, and I do not know that it is inevitable that languages acquire them.
There definitely is a biological component to language. I was thinking of the whole process taking place in genetically-coherent humans. We became anotomically modern about 200,000 years ago and behavioraly modern (language, symbols) about 50,000 years ago. So theres 150,000 years where we dont know much about what happened.
ReplyDeleteThere is a grand mutation theory, that something got 'switched on' in out heads. And there is the 'slowly learning stuff' theory, and a bunch in between.
But whichever one is true, at some point someone had to actually learn something. Genes can allow language but they (probably) cant make it on thier own.
I doubt my bullshit theory is true with a capital T. But I think it may well turn out to be part of the truth.