First of all, this topic is completely imaginary in that there is not and really I cannot see how there can be archaeological evidence that would truly support in any way other then circumstantially any kind of hypothesis of gender based development of language, but it was an interesting topic so I wanted to start a thread as it appears there was some desire to carry on a discussion.


Ok in the previous thread Krimsa had made an argument for the idea that language in its more complex forms would have arisen first from woman who where working in social contexts that required more communication, I think this is an excellent hypothesis given what we do know about women and there roles in prehistoric society.

However, I think what is left out is how society as a whole must use language, and I think it was discounted how important language would be for men in there roles as protectors, hunters, and craftsmen.


As is typical of me, I shall not state my case in its entirety until others have followed suit.

Krimsa it would be awesome if you would just copy over some of you posts from the other thread, I am sure I did not do your argument justice in my short summary.

I think what is missing in the other thread was details, however that thread was not about this topic so I think we all felt a little like hijackers so maybe didn't really dig in.

I was just pullin' Krimsa's chain a little in the other thread.

She had made a broad-based generalization which places all males in the same negatively implicated box, then attempted to support it with just one hypothetical situation which left out relevant factors.



Language is an inherently complex subject matter to begin with, especially when considering the evolutionary probabilities of it. There are physiological elements necessary for the verbalization of language, although verbalization is not necessary for it(language) to exist.

I believe that verbal language began with sounds meant to reproduce emotive thoughts concerning that which was being or had been witnessed in nature, such as the sound of the wind, thunder, different animals, etc.

This should be an interesting subject matter...

If you are capable of refuting this theory, go for it. You sounded serious. I responded to your post. If you were simply "pulling my chain" I will not bother with it.



That is entirely false by the way.

Naw Krimsa...

Capability does not always coincide with need or desire.

You made several reasonable claims, and I have no problem with them concerning the possible role(s) of language acquired and/or used by individuals within communities.

The only thing I would point out is that in order for several hunters to effectively communicate in a non-verbal fashion during a hunt, those gestures would have to have been well understood prior to the hunt.This brings up a few reasonable questions, I think...



Are you suggesting that the men signed all the time?

If women taught their infants how to speak, then did they only teach the females?

Did the males forget how to speak after adolescence began?

Were the males then bilingual, knowing both, the verbalization that the women taught, and the signing necessary to coordinate a hunt?

I often enjoy things that you post.

Wow! What a fascinating subject. I don't think I've ever even asked that question. I sometimes have such an aversion to "words" that I kind of suppress these areas. Even while I talk and think and write, sometimes words are difficult for me to come up to describe particular concepts.

Has anyone come up with some theories from say archeologists or linguists? I haven't done any "net" research on it.

I can only guess that it came along as man developed with brain abilities. That drawing hieroglyphics and making sounds may have been something that went together.

From what I heard at one time, way back when, some of the language was developed as man had evolved into someone that began to understand the idea of "trading". That eventually, there were markings sometimes letting others know what was being traded. But I don't really know about that.

I suppose there were a lot of grunts and sounds that meant things.

I wonder what the first actual "language" was. Think it may have been before "Sumarian"?

Kozee

So you are incapable of responding?



And your point is?




I am not suggesting anything. I am ASSERTING that men would very often embark on long distance hunting expeditions in which they could be gone for upwards of several months.



Of course not. I don’t think you understand this theory at all. You just acknowledged that women would have been the teachers of language.



When did I say that? I expressed that women, who essentially choose their partners would be more inclined to choose a mate that was more verbal, thus producing offspring that were capable of speech.



Male activities would have not required the use of speech. Female activities would have. In fact, speech would have been detrimental to male hunting excursions. Verbalization would have been kept to a bare minimum when used at all.



Thanks. I sometimes enjoy your posts though I have not seen many.

Interesting...

I said...



To which you claimed...



Entirely??? Which part of it is entirely false? Below are your written words which initiated my involvement.







Sounds like negative generalizations to me...

Creativesoul said:



Krimsa responded:





All of it.




And how often has it been expressed that men simply "can’t communicate" or they are "incommunicative" or that they are "just not in touch with their feelings" or that they "can not verbally express themselves." Come on, we are on a dating site here. Shall I point you to some threads?




Similar comment so it does not warrant a response.

So are you going to whine or are you gong to debate this topic?

Responding from one... comprehending on the other... whats the difference?



You will find the points that are made require a little thought about what is written.



Ok... and this warrants the belief that those men never spoke upon those long excursions and therefore never developed the ability to extrapolate upon the language or teach it????

I don’t think you understand this theory at all.

I actually agree with the underlying principle Krimsa. I believe that women were much more involved(generally speaking) in the initial teaching of verbal language to infants and young children.



Again, how does this support the idea that men cannot communicate on the same level as women?




Is that so?

As I asked before... so the males, because of the fact that they hunt at times, did not need to speak?

Did they forget how?

Repetition does not make a claim true.

Broad-based generalizations are a sign of what?

Well I have responded to you on every post now. If you are having trouble comprehending anything I am saying, please ask and I will be more than happy to clarify.




You have yet to make a point that has not been refuted. The ball is in your court.



On a long hunting expedition, are you talking to babies? Are you teaching anyone to speak? Are women back at the cave teaching infants? Are they talking amongst one another?

I don’t think you understand this theory at all.



Well that is the ONLY point I have made thus far. What are you arguing with exactly?



Well I would ask a man but he probably would not answer. This is a theory that offers a plausible explanation as to why men do not communicate on the same level as women and do not verbalize their emotions in the same manner that females are capable of doing.

Male activities would have not required the use of speech. Female activities would have. In fact, speech would have been detrimental to male hunting excursions. Verbalization would have been kept to a bare minimum when used at all.




That has been responded to about three times now....

I am repeating myself because you have continually asked me the same questions and when I respond, you simply ask it again. Creativesoul is clearly not the most accurate description.

You will find the points that are made require a little thought about what is written.

Well have you thought it over yet? You stated you have no argument yet continue to argue.

Krimsa, with all due respect...

As often is the case on an internet forum, there has been some confusion...

I am not refuting the idea that women most probably would have been the initial teachers of language to infants and small children. As a matter of fact, I would concur.

That does not, however, warrant a conclusion that men had no contribution to the development of language in humans. It certainly does not support your claims below, which are what I am refuting. Perhaps therein lies the problem at hand here. You are thinking that I am not understanding your claim, but that is actually not the case.

The claims below do not follow from your example. Where is the connection between the beginnings of prehistoric man's language and the verbal capacity of a male in today's society?





Those are the two broad-based generalizations(conclusions) which in no way logically follow from the example that you provided. I originally underlined those and expressed a face like this...



You denied them, and have yet to copy, paste, and answer a few very valid questions that I have asked regarding the matter at hand, questions that would add a little clarity, none-the-less...

You are clearly attempting to undermine the significance of this however. Yes women were teaching language to children and infants. They were also communicating amongst one another in a social setting. Men were not doing this. What you don’t seem to understand (no fault of your own) is that when men would leave to go hunt, they were very often gone a very long time. If they returned at all, it might be months later. Very often they were killed or they would encounter another tribe and join them.




I’m not sure that I ever made that statement? I said that this theory supports the female as the originator of language amongst human. I see no reason not to reach that conclusion.




Men do not communicate on the same level as women in modern society. Have you ever looked at any of the threads on this forum? That is the number one complaint espoused by women. The men just won’t talk! We can’t get you to talk at all in some cases. This theory is attempting to explain why males were not the originators of language in humans. It also would offer an explanation as to why men have difficulty in emoting as women do through verbal expression.



The same statement is being made here so I am not repeating myself.



I have denied absolutely nothing; In fact I have only reiterated and reinforced the principles behind this theory. I have repeatedly responded to your questions. If you feel there is any one I have not replied to then please point it out.

I would agree that most women were probably the initial teachers of verbal language to children in prehistoric society. This does not mean that the men played no role in the teaching or the creating of language.



Men were not doing what? Teaching children or communicating amongst one another in groups?



I assure you that patronization is unnecessary...

What you do not seem to understand is that your conclusion does not follow from your claim.

Do you believe that because men went on long hunts which they may or may not return from that this warrants the conclusion that men played no teaching role in the development of language within any given tribe?

Surely you can see the problem with this. It is saying...

A man hunts for a long time and may not return, therefore, he does not or could not speak in groups or play a teaching role? Men most certainly used language to communicate, and children learn what they live regardless of the era. Some men came back, right?

Not all men are the same. Not all women are the same.

If your conclusion were true, then all women would be able to effectively communicate their emotions and all men would not.

This is clearly not the case at hand now is it?





I would not say that there is sufficient reason to believe this claim that females are the originators of human language. I would agree that they most probably are/were the initial primary teachers of language to children. Humans, whether male or female, had a need to express their thoughts regarding nature and so developed emotive sounds to mimic such things. The originators very well may have been both, although I think it would be safe to assume that women practiced it more based upon our agreements here.



Does it then follow that the inventor of a thing is always better at it's use?

Of course not!!!

I believe that a much more reasonable argument could be made concerning the effects of how boys and girls are taught to identify and express their emotions in different ways. The collective sense of ought concerning what is considered to be acceptable behaviours from both boys and girls plays and has played a much larger role in the notion of the communicative differences, although there are significant biological differences as well.

So then Krimsa...

How well do I, as a male of course, communicate?

I would say that their role was dramatically inferior.



What you appear to be completely incapable of doing is looking at this in comparative terms. Picture the men on these long hunting excursions where we have already established that a great deal of verbalization would be detrimental. Okay that is one scenario. Now visualize the women back home at the cave. They were collecting the bulk of the food stores. They would have been together in small groups venturing out to collect herbs for medicinal purposes. They would have been talking amongst one another. They would have been finding plants and remembering where they were. They would have been keeping track of what plants were poisonous and what were medicinal and what types were edible. They also knew which plants could induce abortion when needed. They were also caring for infants and teaching them to speak.



I am not patronizing you. You made it clear that you thought that these hunts were sporadic and that the men returned quickly. That was not the case. I was simply explaining that to you as it appeared that you required clarification.



Oh really? So far it would seem to.



This question has been responded to about three times now. I told you that it would have been FAR less significant of a contribution.



Nope. Not thusly.



How many babies were along on that hunt? How many people did he have the opportunity to teach? How important was it to keep quiet on his hunt? Not only that, excessive noise would draw predators to the hunting band. Not a good idea.



You do understand that this is a theory in order to establish the ORIGINONATION of speech in humans.



Women are much more verbal in their communication with one another and with men.



I don’t know. Why don’t you ask why there is an entire self help section at Borders Book store entitled "Communication and Relationship Problems."




Agreed. I would also conclude that women were the originators of language in early humans.





Well if you agree with me that women more than likely were the originators of language and you seem to have come that far, then it would certainly stand to reason that women are more comfortable when speaking or addressing others. They also tend to have a much easier time emoting through the use verbal expression. You are trying to force me into saying that women are better speakers and I would never go that far. I would say that women find verbal communication much easier than males.



Yes but we are not discussing that. We are discussing the actual infancy of human speech.



You express yourself well through non-verbal communication. Typing. I have this feeling you are shy in real life. If I was to meet you in person you would probably be submissive in my presence. That’s the sense I’m getting anyway. I can’t tell in this setting.

Quick question Krimsa, do you think that myself, and Creative lack the same level of communication skills as yourself?

Also if you do think that to be true, do you believe that is gender wide? It would seem so . . .


_______________________

My follow up question to this whole idea of language coming from the female gender since they tend to score higher on language testing vs men is this . . . .

Men tend to score higher on math testing . . . how can we imagine this coming to be using the same methodology?

Would it parallel the same tack, that use equals built in adeptness? So really this whole argument that krimsa is making is one that use = adeptness and that this is a trait system that is built upon and would show reoccurring trends as the traits are passed down (am I wrong here Krimsa or is this how you envision this?)

My argument is much more subtle yet I feel it is far more relevant, to me it seems the only tact that is currently looked at are blunt hatchets swipes, where development and specialization are far more nuanced.

I would agree that the males' role, on average, was most likely inferior to the females' regarding the early aspects of child rearing, however, there are many other aspects of child rearing which lay beyond infancy and early childhood that also include using language skills. Your scope seems quite limited. It is as if you believe that the males did little other than hunt game and procreate, while the females did all of the gathering, some of the hunting, all of the nurturing, and all of the teaching.

Who taught the males to be men, to hunt, to fish, to make tools, to build shelter, to remember where the best hunting spots were, etc.?

You never answered the question below...





Do you truly believe that the men never communicated while hunting? Granted, while in the vicinity of the game animals, they most likely were quiet out of necessity, but why would they not talk to one another and share knowledge, develop strategies, build friendships/loyalties and such while they were simply traveling or on their way home?



WE have not established anything other than the fact that it is a need to be quiet while in the vicinity of the animal(s) being hunted. There are many other components to the trip.

Do you figure that only the men were in danger by talking? Do you figure that the only dangerous animals were wherever the men were? You cannot conclude that men did not speak when they were not actively hunting. If speaking placed them in danger, as you have attempted to claim in support of your stance, then it would also place the women in danger while they were gathering, would it not? So following your logic....

Speaking places one in danger from wild animals, therefore, men would not speak during hunting excursions.

It must also follow that speaking would also place the gathering women in danger for the same reason...

So if men did not speak because of this, then neither did the women... right?



Quote my words and show me. I never said or implied this. It is held within your preconceptions, an overflow of the unconscious products which are affecting your perception.



Of course...

Males dominated at the time. Males fought ferociously. They demanded their wants.

How do you figure that they expressed this without emotive sounds?

How "freely" do you figure the women could speak?



For the same reason there is an entire section on fiction, there has been enough interest in the subject matter to warrant the belief that a dedicated section would improve the profit margin.



I agreed to the hypothetical in order make a point that the inventor of a thing is not necessarily the best "user" of that thing.



I am forcing no such thing.

I had said...



To which you responded as such...



Your words claimed that men do not communicate on the same level as women, futhermore, that men could not communicate effectively. That broad-based generalization was used by you as proof to support the claim that women were the originators of human language. I have clearly shown why it is not viable evidence to support your claim.