Monday, September 24, 2007

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Piraha Amazonian Tribe

Here is the New Yorker article on linguistics we were discussing in class today for those of you that are interested. It really is an amazing article.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/04/16/070416fa_fact_colapinto

Sunday, September 16, 2007

CRYBABIES

Rousseau's got us thinking about the origins of language. If human speech begins with the natural vocalizing of infants, what are babies with colic trying to say? Check out the article by Jerome Groopman in the New Yorker of September 17, 2007. It's not online yet, but it will become available through Lexus Nexus any day now, so I'll post a link when it's up. The caption to this image from the article reads: "According to one scholar, the sound of a wailing infant is 'about the most disturbing, demanding, shattering noise we can hear.'" (47)
And for the latest proof that the image of the extremely sensitive loner outcast persists as a central image in modern Western culture, check out Isabel's latest posting.

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Thought on Rousseau
One line bugged me: "I leave to anyone who will undertake it, the discussion of the following difficult problem: Which was the more necessary, a society already established for the invention of language, or language already invented for the establishment of society?" (96-97).This is why I don't like telling people I meet that I am a Philosophy major: philosophers are known for getting themselves in ruts, and it's true! It's frustrating! It's time-consuming! It's infuriating!So what's my answer to this 'paradox' Rousseau lays out before us? I respond boldly and simply: "Both." And this is not a cop-out response. Allow me to explain the logic: the point of language is for an individual to communicate with another individual and one individual wouldn't need to communicate with any other individuals unless these other individuals were around. Therefore, 'language' and 'society' grew concurrently. Presto.I'm a philosopher. This is not reductionist. This is thought. Clear, plain, and simple.