Difference between revisions of "Annotation:Text:The Development of Language as Purposive Behavior/Z5qcnu8pp8"
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{TextAnnotation | {{TextAnnotation | ||
|AnnotationOf=Text:The_Development_of_Language_as_Purposive_Behavior | |AnnotationOf=Text:The_Development_of_Language_as_Purposive_Behavior | ||
| − | |LastModificationDate=2019- | + | |LastModificationDate=2019-10-14T18:23:26.266Z |
|LastModificationUser=User:Sarah Oberbichler | |LastModificationUser=User:Sarah Oberbichler | ||
| − | |AnnotationMetadata=^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Z5qcnu8pp8","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ3Ӻ","startOffset":474,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ3Ӻ","endOffset":2614°Ӻ,"quote":"To begin, we may say that there could hardly have been an evolution of speech, or language, if there had not been an origin. We can even generalize and say there is no evolution without an origin. When we think in terms of the theory of evolution, we tend to focus on the way it functions and then it seems quite natural that it must have been operative from the very beginning. Yet, it is fairly clear that for something to evolve, something must be there—and this something would be called the source, or the origin, of everything that evolved from it. I am not making this point in order to stir a metaphysical wasp’s nest. I am making it because I believe it has to be made if we are to understand one another. “The origin of speech” refers to an item, an event or state of affairs, which we consider to have been the starting point for the “evolution of speech”. When we say “speech”, we inevitably have in mind vocal sounds that have a certain function—not just incidental vocal noises that are produced in a haphazard way. Yet, to have an evolution of speech, a species must have been producing haphazard vocal noises, the raw material as it were, that could then acquire the function of speech. This raw material is at the origin, and the subsequent changes, transformations, and additions that eventually brought it to what we now call “speech”, is its evolution. We could, of course, also investigate how that species came to produce haphazard vocal noises; but if we included that study under the heading “evolution of speech”, we should have to include the study of how that species came to have the physiological structures that happen to produce noise, and so on, I’m afraid, right back to a study of how anything came to be alive. A theorist, as Hebb once suggested,Ӷ2Ӻ is in one way like a bricklayer: if he wants to get on with his building, he has to accept bricks as bricks. If he becomes interested in the structure of bricks and how they are made, he ceases to be a bricklayer. So much for the distinction between origin and evolution. \nWith the two terms of the second pair in our title, things may not go so smoothly.","highlights":Ӷ^" | + | |AnnotationMetadata=^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Z5qcnu8pp8","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ3Ӻ","startOffset":474,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ3Ӻ","endOffset":2614°Ӻ,"quote":"To begin, we may say that there could hardly have been an evolution of speech, or language, if there had not been an origin. We can even generalize and say there is no evolution without an origin. When we think in terms of the theory of evolution, we tend to focus on the way it functions and then it seems quite natural that it must have been operative from the very beginning. Yet, it is fairly clear that for something to evolve, something must be there—and this something would be called the source, or the origin, of everything that evolved from it. I am not making this point in order to stir a metaphysical wasp’s nest. I am making it because I believe it has to be made if we are to understand one another. “The origin of speech” refers to an item, an event or state of affairs, which we consider to have been the starting point for the “evolution of speech”. When we say “speech”, we inevitably have in mind vocal sounds that have a certain function—not just incidental vocal noises that are produced in a haphazard way. Yet, to have an evolution of speech, a species must have been producing haphazard vocal noises, the raw material as it were, that could then acquire the function of speech. This raw material is at the origin, and the subsequent changes, transformations, and additions that eventually brought it to what we now call “speech”, is its evolution. We could, of course, also investigate how that species came to produce haphazard vocal noises; but if we included that study under the heading “evolution of speech”, we should have to include the study of how that species came to have the physiological structures that happen to produce noise, and so on, I’m afraid, right back to a study of how anything came to be alive. A theorist, as Hebb once suggested,Ӷ2Ӻ is in one way like a bricklayer: if he wants to get on with his building, he has to accept bricks as bricks. If he becomes interested in the structure of bricks and how they are made, he ceases to be a bricklayer. So much for the distinction between origin and evolution. \nWith the two terms of the second pair in our title, things may not go so smoothly.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321046347916134628912":^°°,^"jQuery321046347916134628912":^°°,^"jQuery321046347916134628912":^°°,^"jQuery321046347916134628912":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","category":"Argumentation2","data_creacio":1562148132687° |
}} | }} | ||
{{Thema | {{Thema | ||
Latest revision as of 17:23, 14 October 2019
| Annotation of | Text:The_Development_of_Language_as_Purposive_Behavior |
|---|---|
| Annotation Comment | |
| Last Modification Date | 2019-10-14T18:23:26.266Z |
| Last Modification User | User:Sarah Oberbichler |
| Annotation Metadata | ^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Z5qcnu8pp8","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ3Ӻ","startOffset":474,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ3Ӻ","endOffset":2614°Ӻ,"quote":"To begin, we may say that there could hardly have been an evolution of speech, or language, if there had not been an origin. We can even generalize and say there is no evolution without an origin. When we think in terms of the theory of evolution, we tend to focus on the way it functions and then it seems quite natural that it must have been operative from the very beginning. Yet, it is fairly clear that for something to evolve, something must be there—and this something would be called the source, or the origin, of everything that evolved from it. I am not making this point in order to stir a metaphysical wasp’s nest. I am making it because I believe it has to be made if we are to understand one another. “The origin of speech” refers to an item, an event or state of affairs, which we consider to have been the starting point for the “evolution of speech”. When we say “speech”, we inevitably have in mind vocal sounds that have a certain function—not just incidental vocal noises that are produced in a haphazard way. Yet, to have an evolution of speech, a species must have been producing haphazard vocal noises, the raw material as it were, that could then acquire the function of speech. This raw material is at the origin, and the subsequent changes, transformations, and additions that eventually brought it to what we now call “speech”, is its evolution. We could, of course, also investigate how that species came to produce haphazard vocal noises; but if we included that study under the heading “evolution of speech”, we should have to include the study of how that species came to have the physiological structures that happen to produce noise, and so on, I’m afraid, right back to a study of how anything came to be alive. A theorist, as Hebb once suggested,Ӷ2Ӻ is in one way like a bricklayer: if he wants to get on with his building, he has to accept bricks as bricks. If he becomes interested in the structure of bricks and how they are made, he ceases to be a bricklayer. So much for the distinction between origin and evolution. \nWith the two terms of the second pair in our title, things may not go so smoothly.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321046347916134628912":^°°,^"jQuery321046347916134628912":^°°,^"jQuery321046347916134628912":^°°,^"jQuery321046347916134628912":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","category":"Argumentation2","data_creacio":1562148132687°
|
| Thema | Evolution |
|---|
| Thema | Sprache |
|---|
