Disentangling the Neanderthal Net: A Comment on Johansson (2013)

IF 0.6 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
L. Barceló-Coblijn, A. Benítez‐Burraco
{"title":"Disentangling the Neanderthal Net: A Comment on Johansson (2013)","authors":"L. Barceló-Coblijn, A. Benítez‐Burraco","doi":"10.5964/bioling.8977","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Sverker Johansson provided a very useful piece of work in which he skillfully reviews most aspects and scientific areas that have dealt with the Neanderthal language issue, including (but not limited to) genetics, archaeology, linguistics and modeling. Johansson’s main conclusion is that Homo neanderthalensis had some form of language, at the very least, a proto-language, which he understands as “a system possessing lexical semantics but not syntax” (Johansson 2013: 6). At the same time, he notes that many aspects are still obscure, and that the data reported until now is still not conclusive. In particular, “whether they had syntactic language can be neither confirmed nor refuted” (p. 23). We agree with Johansson when he says that Neanderthals had to count on some form of language. The amount of evidence he has reviewed points in this direction without doubt. We also agree with him in conceding Neanderthals a much more sophisticated capacity for oral production than as sometimes been depicted in the past. Nevertheless, we think that the real, productive debate is whether or not Neanderthals had the same faculty of language that anatomically modern humans (henceforth, AMHs) have. The author distances himself from this debate and, at the end, he does not take a stance. According to Johansson, the main reasons for not taking any clear position in this regard are related to an inherent problem of the sources of evidence and of the methodology:","PeriodicalId":54041,"journal":{"name":"Biolinguistics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2013-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"26","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biolinguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5964/bioling.8977","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 26

Abstract

Sverker Johansson provided a very useful piece of work in which he skillfully reviews most aspects and scientific areas that have dealt with the Neanderthal language issue, including (but not limited to) genetics, archaeology, linguistics and modeling. Johansson’s main conclusion is that Homo neanderthalensis had some form of language, at the very least, a proto-language, which he understands as “a system possessing lexical semantics but not syntax” (Johansson 2013: 6). At the same time, he notes that many aspects are still obscure, and that the data reported until now is still not conclusive. In particular, “whether they had syntactic language can be neither confirmed nor refuted” (p. 23). We agree with Johansson when he says that Neanderthals had to count on some form of language. The amount of evidence he has reviewed points in this direction without doubt. We also agree with him in conceding Neanderthals a much more sophisticated capacity for oral production than as sometimes been depicted in the past. Nevertheless, we think that the real, productive debate is whether or not Neanderthals had the same faculty of language that anatomically modern humans (henceforth, AMHs) have. The author distances himself from this debate and, at the end, he does not take a stance. According to Johansson, the main reasons for not taking any clear position in this regard are related to an inherent problem of the sources of evidence and of the methodology:
解开尼安德特人的网络:对约翰逊(2013)的评论
Sverker Johansson提供了一份非常有用的工作,他巧妙地回顾了处理尼安德特人语言问题的大多数方面和科学领域,包括(但不限于)遗传学、考古学、语言学和建模。Johansson的主要结论是,尼安德特人拥有某种形式的语言,至少是一种原始语言,他将其理解为“拥有词汇语义但没有语法的系统”(Johansson 2013: 6)。同时,他指出,许多方面仍然模糊不清,迄今为止报告的数据仍然没有定论。特别是,“他们是否有句法语言既不能证实也不能反驳”(第23页)。我们同意约翰逊所说的尼安德特人必须依靠某种形式的语言。他审查的大量证据毫无疑问地指向这个方向。我们也同意他的观点,即尼安德特人的口腔生产能力比过去所描述的要复杂得多。然而,我们认为真正有意义的争论是尼安德特人是否拥有解剖学意义上的现代人(以下简称AMHs)所拥有的语言能力。作者与这场争论保持距离,最后,他没有表明立场。Johansson认为,在这方面没有采取任何明确立场的主要原因与证据来源和方法的固有问题有关:
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Biolinguistics
Biolinguistics LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信