Candide

roman catholic by birth; scientific atheist by choice; sinner by merit. blogging on brains, evolution and language. gaidhlig-speaking neuroscience student at oxford. likes to Question Everything!

The Stately Foxtrot Of The Language Gene

The First Family

The K.E. clan are the first family of linguistics. A dynasty with over thirty members, their seat is in London, England.  But what have they done to merit their title? To put it bluntly, they can’t talk.

Over three generations, around half the family suffers from a disorder whose name changes from verbal dyspraxia to dysphasia depending on who’s writing the paper. The key characteristic of this disorder is that their speech sounds like gobbledegook to the rest of the family – indeed, the impairment is so severe they now rely on simple hand signals to get things done. The family was first discovered by Myrna Gopnik in 1990 and a quick glance at the family tree was enough to confirm that she was dealing with an autosomal dominant disorder caused by a mutation in just one gene. The unmutated gene would presumably code for the ability the sufferers lacked – namely, language! Journalists jumped at the news, and the language (or, even more remarkably, grammar-) gene meme dominated the popular picture of genetics for the rest of the decade.

Early research fuelled the press perception that this was the gene for language. For instance, the affected family members were shown to repeatedly fail Wug Tests. In a Wug Test the subject is given a drawing of a made-up animal and told this is a wug. Then they are given a drawing of two of these wugs and asked to complete the sentence: ‘Now there are two…’ The affected family members simply could not generalize the plural add ‘s’ rule to an unfamiliar noun like wug. Similarly, they could make no sense of sentences whose meaning depended on the rules of syntax – they were unable to answer the question: ‘The lion was killed by the tiger. Which one is dead?’ All this pointed to a specific inability to parse syntax.

Nonetheless, it was clear from just listening to the subjects that effect of the impairment was much wider than a mere grammatical deficiency. The affected family members couldn’t control the muscles in the mouth and tongue properly, making it very difficult to produce the tiny changes in tongue position that produce different phonemes. This manifested itself in the subjects struggling to repeat multisyllabic words that demanded quick sound shifts. Steven Pinker went as far as to conclude in the Language Instinct that the so-called language gene was really a gene affecting mouth and tongue muscle movements. He guessed that fine motor control of these muscles must have been a prerequisite for the evolution of vocal language.

Because the IQ Range of the sufferers overlapped with that of the unaffected family members (with one sufferer even having as high an IQ as 111!), commentators were able to claim that the disorder was independent of general intelligence – therefore it just had to be language specific and thus, as night follows day, the gene must also be language specific. Yet, when we look at the stats, the mean IQ of the unaffected group was 104, while that of the sufferers was 85 – with many of them classed as ‘mentally retarded.’ There is clearly a significant difference in IQ between the two groups! Nonetheless, perhaps the sufferers’ low scores can be blamed on poor performance in verbal reasoning caused by their language defect. Unfortunately in 1995 this explanation was proved wrong – the sufferers’ really were stupider, with low IQs in both verbal and non-verbal domains. Moreover, it was shown that the gene affected muscle control in generating facial expressions too. This gene it seemed was about far more than just language…

Read More

Question Everything

http://candide94.tumblr.com/ask

Willing to answer questions on science, philosophy, language, religion, politics, history, gaelic and scotland. 

I’m quite knowledgeable (though no expert) on neuroscience, evolutionary biology, evolutionary psychology, linguistics, minority languages, gaelic, catholicism, moral philosophy, the philosophy of biology, british politics, scottish history, polynesian history and general European history.

I always make the effort to provide long interesting answers. Why not ask me? You’ve got nothing to lose!

Also, if you’re that way inclined, I will answer personal questions!!!

http://candide94.tumblr.com/ask

Looking For Blogs To Follow

I follow blogs that post about any of:

Science

History

Languages/Linguistics (especially Minority Languages)

Biology

Neuroscience

Evolution

Physics/Astronomy

Chemistry

Psychology (especially Evolutionary Psychology)

Philosophy (especially Moral Philosophy)

Fantasy and Sci-Fi

Steampunk

Young Adult Literature (especially His Dark Materials and Mortal Engines)

Current Affairs/Politics

Religion (especially Catholicism)

Atheism

Geology/Palaeontalogy

Anthropology

The list is a long one, so, please, if you blog about any of the above send me a message in my ask telling me who are, and I’ll happily follow you! I post about most of the above myself at http://candide94.tumblr.com/

I have to do this for my own sanity

tulililli:

This is a ridiculously mundane post, but I have to do something to stay sane while I work on this literature review. I’m doing a research paper on patterns in Ethnolinguistic Vitality and Language Maintenance in native linguistic minorities in the UK. In normal, I-have-a-life words, I’m basically trying to figure out why Welsh is getting more popular and Gaelic is declining. The major factors of an enduring language seem to come from these four, for almost every researcher:
  • Prestige of Language
    Use at respected institutions, perceived legitimacy, use by “cool” people, taught in schools or not.
    Landweer, UNESCO, Karan
  • Relationship between language minority and majority
    Government policy, tension or lack of tension between the two groups, etc.
    UNESCO, Karan, Ehala, Landweer
  • Ability to use language for economic reasons
    presence or absence of the language in the public and business sectors, continuity or discontinuity of the majority language economy with the minority language economy.
    UNESCO, Landweer, Karan, Ehala. 
  • Significance of Language to minority
    How important it is to them that the language continue on, any sentimental or nationalistic meaning for the language, whether the language makes a statement about specifically not belonging to the majority.
    UNESCO, Landweer, Karan, Ehala.

Is this Scottish or Irish Gaelic? I’m fluent in Scottish Gaelic. My own feeling is that one of the ultimate reasons behind the different fortunes is that the Welsh language is seen by most Welsh people to be intimately connected to their country and culture but Scottish Gaelic is seen by the vast majority of Scots as being something ‘teuchtars’ (scottish ‘hicks’, means thicko) speak on those windswept, alcoholic, bible-bashing islands at the edge of nowhere. 

In Wales, every schoolchild is at least exposed to Welsh - most Scottish people will go their lives without hearing a word of Gaelic. This can be seen as a symptom of the differing fortunes, but it can also be viewed as a cause. There was a resurgence in both Welsh and Scottish nationalism in the 19th and early 20th century. The Welsh embraced Welsh as a defining marker of Welshness and the thing they would be fighting for - they weren’t too bothered about political independence. The Scottish national parties were founded by Lowlanders who had never met a Gaelic speaker in their lives and who were focussed on getting home rule. If there was a lingusitic element at all, it was of the Hugh MacDiarmid variety - trying to craft the various Anglo-Saxon idioms, already in decline, into a Synthetic National Scots. They were basically arrayed against Gaelic - which to these Protestant lowlands represented Irishness and the Pope. 

So the national movement in Wales was united by Welsh and faught for it. The national movement in Scotland ignored Gaelic, because, well it was never really a language of all of Scotland anyway, and focussed on fighting for home rule. It was left to the Gaels themselves to preserve Gaelic, and being the poorest, most downtrodden, inhabitants of Scotland, is it any wonder they were willing to abandon their language in order to move to the lowlands where the streets were paved with gold, and they could look forward to a better English-speaking future.

hall0weenjack:

Indo-European language tree.

They seem to have Scottish and Irish Gaelic descending from Gaulish, which in turn shares a common ancestor with Manx. Now that can’t be right!

hall0weenjack:

Indo-European language tree.

They seem to have Scottish and Irish Gaelic descending from Gaulish, which in turn shares a common ancestor with Manx. Now that can’t be right!

(Source: awesomejob)

Cultural appropriation….

rafiki-town:

You wanna talk cultural appropriation? Look at the Irish. Their entire culture is appropriated from Scotland…except for the excessive drinking and leprechauns. But the bagpipes, kilts, step dancing, celtic music…all of that originates from Scotland. They say that the ancient Irish peoples most likely come from Germania, and were in fact not a Celtic people.

Obh mo chreach, someone doesn’t know shite about Celtic people.

Also, in which world are the only cultural traits of the Irish a bunch of green men and alcoholism?

Oh, right, in Hollywood. 

First of all, you’re failing to distinguish between two, within Scotland, different cultures, i.e. Gaelic and Scots cultures, secondly, the Scottish Gaels - i.e. Scotland’s Celts - came from Ireland, not the other way round. The Scots came from Scandinavia and the Netherlands.

And guess what, Scottish Gaelic is a daughter language of Irish Gaelic.

Thirdly, you seem to know fuck all about real Scottish culture. Fourthly, the bagpipes were invented by the Hitite and the biggest producer of bagpipes today is the incredibly non-Celtic country of Pakistan.

Fifthly, your understanding of Celtic music is flawed and most likely based on a false understanding of who the Celts were - Celts spanned Europe for several hundred years, living in areas from the Black Sea to Portugal. Galician and Breton folk music is as Celtic as Scottish and Irish folk music.

Sixthly, Irish and Gaelic music share many similarities but are also highly different. We have the puirt, the Irish have sean-nós and so on and so forth.

Seventhly, the Irish have one of the longest surviving literary histories in Europe and eightly; if I hear anyone reduce Scottishness to step dancing and bagpipes again I will shove a set of pipes up someones arse. 

This is entirely unrelated but I think we have to be careful when distinguishing Irish, Scottish and Manx Gaelic culture. The first point is that Scottish Gaelic is not a daughter language of Irish Gaelic. They both share a common ancestor in Old Irish which was spoken between 500-1000AD in Ireland and on the western seaboard of GB (including Wales). The precursor to Old Irish was Primitive Irish, which can be seen in Ogham inscriptions in Ireland, in Wales and in Scotland. We tend to think of Scottish Gaeldom as arising from the establishment of the Dalriada colonies in 600AD, but there were Gaels in Scotland long before, as attested by Ogham inscriptions etc. We should really talk about Primitive Gaelic, Old Gaelic and Middle Gaelic - there is a certain Hibernocentricism operating here, which I feel ought to be challenged.

Even during the medieval period its meaningless to speak of a distinct Scottish and a distinct Irish language. We know Scottish bards would train in schools in Ireland, and vice-versa. We know that until the 1200s both western scotland and ireland were part of a norse-celtic cultural area, separate from the lowlands of Scotland and the The Pale of Dublin. Early modern Irish and Classical Gaelic, in use to the 18th century, were the same language, and used the same alphabet. The first Gaelic book ever published in print was a translation by the Scottish Bishop of the Isles of John Knox’s book of prayer for use in Ireland…

There was a linguistic continuum stretching from Munster in the south to Lewis in the north. Ulster Irish as a dialect in the 1700s would have been intelligible to people in Tiree. I don’t imagine Lewis and Munster men would have had much luck talking to each other either. This continuum was lost in the late 19th century and early 20th century with the decline in Gaelic use in the inner hebrides and in argyll, as well as in Ulster. The notion of two separate ‘national’ Gaelics has been helped by the post-independence heavy standardization and simplification of written Irish, something which never happened in Scotland. 

We have to remember that between the 1200s and the 20th century there was no real Gaelic national power in either country. Scotland, founded by Gaels, had been Anglicized, and, in reality, A United Ireland never existed as a political ‘kingdom’ until the English established one to control the various chieftains etc. So for 700 years or so, we had this pan-cultural stateless linguistic zone, attacked by English-speakers, and depopulated by famine and migration. But Ireland got independence and so gaelic became the language of Ireland, and so the shared oldest literature in the world was used by irish natiuonalists as a way of showing theirs was an ancient and great nation. The Irish state embraced gaelic as a signifier of Irish nationhood, and were happy to celebrate this ‘Irish’ language that went back 2000 years…

But, I believe we need to reformulate the linguistic history in terms of a shared Gaelic history, and recognize that Irish and Scottish Gaelics became only mutually unintelligle fairly recently in the last three centuries.

(Source: taye-bay-bay, via selchieproductions)

Reblog if you love to write.

Whether it be fanfiction, original stories, drabbles, songs, poems, books, or anything that has to do with creative words, then reblog. Let’s gather all the writers of Tumblr together.

My only caveat is that the only truly creative word-smiths are people who literally invent languages, dialects or slang. i.e. Tolkien, Mark Rosenfelder, Russel Hoban…

Writers merely put them together in interesting ways. (not that there’s anything ‘merely’ about doing so!)

I count myself an amateur among the latter, and before I got a girlfriend/life I used to dabble in the former. (ah those were the days!)

(Source: insaneandproudofit, via fdays)

selchieproductions:

You can’t Google it and get it back

© Survival International and Joanna Eede

“You say laughter and I say larfter,” sang Louis Armstrong. The difference is subtle. Across the world, however, from the Amazon to the Arctic, tribal peoples say it in 4,000 entirely different ways.

Sadly, no one now says “laughter” in Eyak, a language from the Gulf of Alaska, whose last fluent speaker died in 2008, or in the Bo language from the Andaman Islands, for its last remaining speaker, Boa Senior, died in 2010. Nearly 55,000 years of thoughts and ideas— the collective history of an entire people— died with her.

Most tribal languages are disappearing faster than they can be recorded. Linguists at the Living Tongues Institute for Endangered Languages believe that on average, a language is disappearing every two weeks. By 2100, more than half of the more than 7,000 languages spoken on Earth—many of them not yet recorded—may disappear. The pace at which they are declining exceeds even that of species extinction.

As tribal peoples are evicted from their lands, as their children are taken away from their communities and forced into education systems that strip away traditional wisdom, as wars, urbanisation, genocide, disease, violent land-grabs and globalisation continue to threaten tribal peoples with extinction, so the world’s tribal languages are dying. And with the death of tribes and the extinction of their languages, unique parts of human society become nothing more than memories.

In Western Brazil, among the endlessly dry, yellowing soya fields of Rondônia state, where smoke billows on the horizon and the smell of burning wood hangs in the air, there still exist small fragments of lush, intact rainforest. Here the five remaining members of the once-thriving, and isolated, Akuntsu tribe live.

Their diminished population is due to the building of a major highway through Rondônia in the 1970s, which resulted in waves of cattle ranchers, loggers, land speculators and colonists occupying the state. The settlers were hungry for land, at any price. Cattle ranchers bulldozed the forest home of the Akuntsu, tried to hide the destruction, and employed gunmen to murder the inhabitants. The surviving members fled into the forest, where they remained, traumatised, until contact was made in the mid-1990s. Since then, linguists have been working with the tribe in an effort to understand their language. The hope is that one day the Akuntsu will not only be able to recount their tragic story in detail, but will be able to share the knowledge and insights embedded in their words.

The fate of tribal languages is the same across the world. Before Europeans arrived in America and Australia, hundreds of complex languages were spoken in each country. Today, neither the Yurok language of California nor the Yawuru of Western Australia has more than a handful of speakers. Among the Blackfoot tribes of the northwestern plains of North America, it is rare to find a person under the age of 20 speaking the mother tongue, Siksika; most speakers are dwindling groups of elderly people. When languages become the preserve of the old, the knowledge systems inherent in them become endangered; for the rest of the world, this means that unique ways of adapting to the planet and responding creatively to its challenges go to the grave with the last speakers. In a world of ecological uncertainty, such information is no small loss.

In fact, many of the world’s tribal languages are not spoken to children. Preventing a tribe from communicating in its language has long been a policy deliberately adopted by dominant authorities in order to marginalise tribal ways of life. From the 1950s to 1980s, the Soviet authorities in Siberia tried to suppress the traditions of the country’s tribal peoples by sending tribal children to schools that did not teach their own languages; some children were even punished for daring to speak them.

In Canada, Inuit children were taken away from their homes, sent to residential schools, and beaten for communicating in their mother tongue. “I didn’t expect to get strapped at that time, but I did,” said George Gosnell, an Inuit man, “I went to the principal’s office and I got strapped for using our languages.” In Canada’s Innu communities, although some teaching is now carried out through the medium of Innu-aimun, the Innu language, most is conveyed in English or French. “The kids don’t understand us these days we when use old Innu words,” an Innu man told a Survival International researcher, “and we can’t translate, because we don’t understand.”

Understanding is everything, however, in harsh environments. To understand a language and the knowledge and information held within it is to survive: land, life and language are intimately related for most tribal peoples. Encoded within their vocabularies and passed down the generations are the secrets to surviving in the deserts of Africa, the ice-fields of the Arctic or the rainforests of Papua New Guinea. “I cannot read books,” said the Gana Bushman Roy Sesana from Botswana. “But I do know how to read the land and animals. All our children could. If they couldn’t, they would have died long ago.”

The languages of Bo, Innu-aiman, Penan, Akuntsu, Siksika, Yanomami and Yawuru are rich in the results of thousands of years of observation and discovery and aspects of life that are central to the survival of the community – and the wider world. “The hunter gatherer way of being in the world, their way of knowing and talking about the world, depends on detailed, specific knowledge,” says anthropologist Hugh Brody, while linguist K. David Harrison, in his book When Languages Die writes, “When we lose a language, we lose centuries of human thinking about time, seasons, sea creatures, reindeer, edible flowers, mathematics, landscapes, myths, music, the unknown and the everyday.”

Most tribal languages, however, cannot be found in books. Or on the Internet. Or for that matter in any form of documentation, because most of them have been orally conveyed. But this, of course, makes them no less valid, or relevant. Oral languages record their own parallel stream of history. “Australia’s true history is never read,” wrote an Aboriginal poet, “But the black man keeps it in his head”—a thought echoed by the Bushman woman Dicao Oma when she said simply, “We have our own talk.”

Similarly, the Bolivian Kallawaya, itinerant healers who are thought to have been the naturopathic healers for Inca Kings, and who still travel through the Andean mountain valleys and highland plateaus in search of traditional herbs, also have their own “talk”; a secret family language that has been handed down from father to son, or grandfather to grandson. Some believe the language, called Machaj Juyai or “folk language,” to be the secret language of the Inca Kings, linked to the languages of the Amazonian forest, to which the Kallawaya once travelled to find material for their treatments.

In the age of technology, there is some hope of revival for Kallawaya and other fading languages of the world. One encouraging example is Quecha, the most widely spoken indigenous language in South America. It has long been in slow decline but is being revived after Google launched a search engine in Quechua, Microsoft produced versions of Windows and Office in the language, and the scholar Demetrio Túpac Yupanqui translated Don Quixote into his own mother tonguge. Documenting and saving ancient languages is thus entirely possible, and can actually be facilitated by the latest communication technologies: mobile phone texts, social networks and iPhone apps.

In the end, the death of tribal languages matters not only for the identity of its speakers—a language is, as the linguist Noam Chomsky said, “a mirror of the mind”—but for all of us, for our common humanity. Tribal languages are languages of the earth, suffused with complex geographical, ecological and climatic information that is rooted in locale, but universally significant. The very fact that the Inuit people of Canada have no one word for snow, for example, but are able to name many different types, demonstrates just how attuned they are to their environment, and therefore to potential changes in it—a skill that, arguably, many urbanised people have lost now that they are that more removed from the natural world.

But languages are also rich in spiritual and social insights–ideas about what it is to be human; to live, love and die. Just as natural cures to humanity’s illnesses are waiting to be found in plants in the rainforest, so many ideas, perceptions and solutions about how humans engage with each other and with the natural world already exist, in the tribal languages of the world. Languages are far more than mere words: they amount to what we know, and who we know ourselves to be. Their loss is immeasurable. In the words of Daniel Everett, linguist, author and Dean of Arts and Sciences at Bentley University, “When we lose tribal knowledge we lose part of our ‘force’ as Homo sapiens. There is a inestimable loss of expression of humor, knowledge, love, and the gamut of human experience. One ancient tradition, a world of solutions to life is lost forever. You can’t Google it and get it back.”

“They say our language is simple, that we should give up this simple language of ours and speak your kind of language,” wrote Inuit Simon Anaviapik. “But this language of mine, of yours, is who we are and who we have been. It is where we find our stories, our lives, our ancestors; and it should be where we find our future, too.”

I liked all of this bar the claim that “The very fact that the Inuit people of Canada have no one word for snow, for example, but are able to name many different types, demonstrates just how attuned they are to their environment, and therefore to potential changes in it.” I think Boas wrote that there were four root words for snow. Over the years this has morphed into 5 then eight then nine then 12 then 19 then into the hundreds, becoming anthroplogy’s most famous urban legend. But if I remember right Boas’s four man list included a specific root word for snowdrift (qimusuq or sumat). By your logic, the fact the Inuit have a discrete (rather than compound) word for snowdrift reflects their close relationship with snow. But consider the fact that people in Eriskay, Western Isles will use Gaelic ‘cathadh’ for snowdrift and gaelic ‘sneachda’ for snow. Also, consider that the four inuit roots (snow on ground, snowdrift, can’t remember, and snowfall) must be descended from roots in the Eskimo-Aleut family which originates in Asia, crossing the Bering, then heading north into Canada/Greenland - produced by a linguistic history in more southerly latitudes. Finally, consider that even English has at least four words for types of snow: snow, sleat, slush, flurry, hail, blizzard, crystal, ice, … etc etc. Thanks though for the great post about language death, something everyone really shoudl be aware of. Here’s a great book on the subject, which you might of read anyway …. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Vanishing-Voices-Extinction-Worlds-Languages/dp/0195152468/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1312994115&sr=8-1