What do you think?
Rate this book
SPEECH! How Language Made Us Human
Praise from STEPHEN FRY: "A book to make you cry out 'Yes, yes, yes!' SPEECH! is an utterly enthralling voyage into the very heart of what makes us human. To put it simply, Simon Prentis gets it. He gets that language is, above everything else, the key to understanding ourselves, our past and our future. But he gets something else too - fascinating, illuminating, thrilling as his voyage may be, it is above all urgent."
"Stands with Steven Pinker and James Lovelock as a 'must-read' for our times." - JOHN GRIBBIN
"I couldn't stop reading until I finished it. This book should be widely read!" - JAMES LOVELOCK
"I'm glad to have read it. A literate and stylish writer." - RICHARD DAWKINS
"Subtle, erudite and profoundly thought-provoking." - NICHOLAS CRANE
"Such an imaginative and scholarly work." - SIR ANTHONY SELDON
"Reading for both pleasure and research." - RICKY GERVAIS
"Bravo! A compelling read." - YOKO ONO LENNON
"I think you're right." - STEVEN PINKER
What makes us human? Why are we the only animals who wear clothes, surf social media, and send robots to Mars? It’s all because we’ve learnt to yet remarkably, we still don’t know how we did it. SPEECH! suggests an answer that’s been hiding in plain sight – a simple yet radical shift that turned our primitive grunts and shrieks to words. But the consequences were far from simple, for language was an evolutionary tipping it gave us the power to share ideas and pass on knowledge. SPEECH! traces our roller-coaster ride from hunter-gatherer to urban hipster – the epic tale of humanity’s struggle to escape the traps of culture, religion and identity. That journey leaves us on the brink of a destiny we may still resist, but must now learn to embrace if we are to survive…
About the author: Simon Prentis has spent a lifetime working with other cultures and languages in over fifty countries. A veteran translator and interpreter of Japanese, his clients have ranged from government departments and academic and international institutions to cultural icons like Paul McCartney, Stanley Kubrick, Frank Zappa and Yoko Ono.
"Stands with Steven Pinker and James Lovelock as a 'must-read' for our times." - JOHN GRIBBIN
"I couldn't stop reading until I finished it. This book should be widely read!" - JAMES LOVELOCK
"I'm glad to have read it. A literate and stylish writer." - RICHARD DAWKINS
"Subtle, erudite and profoundly thought-provoking." - NICHOLAS CRANE
"Such an imaginative and scholarly work." - SIR ANTHONY SELDON
"Reading for both pleasure and research." - RICKY GERVAIS
"Bravo! A compelling read." - YOKO ONO LENNON
"I think you're right." - STEVEN PINKER
What makes us human? Why are we the only animals who wear clothes, surf social media, and send robots to Mars? It’s all because we’ve learnt to yet remarkably, we still don’t know how we did it. SPEECH! suggests an answer that’s been hiding in plain sight – a simple yet radical shift that turned our primitive grunts and shrieks to words. But the consequences were far from simple, for language was an evolutionary tipping it gave us the power to share ideas and pass on knowledge. SPEECH! traces our roller-coaster ride from hunter-gatherer to urban hipster – the epic tale of humanity’s struggle to escape the traps of culture, religion and identity. That journey leaves us on the brink of a destiny we may still resist, but must now learn to embrace if we are to survive…
About the author: Simon Prentis has spent a lifetime working with other cultures and languages in over fifty countries. A veteran translator and interpreter of Japanese, his clients have ranged from government departments and academic and international institutions to cultural icons like Paul McCartney, Stanley Kubrick, Frank Zappa and Yoko Ono.
333 pages, Paperback
Published April 8, 2022
46 people are currently reading
264 people want to read
About the author
Simon Prentis
2 books1 followerSimon Prentis was born in England in 1953. Initially accepted to study Chemistry at Oxford University, he graduated in 1978 with an MA in English Language and Literature before travelling to Japan to study Aikido. There he taught English and began studying Japanese while training for his black belt - gaining an RSA Diploma in TEFL along the way, and completing a course at Simul Academy, Japan's premier interpreting school. After returning to the UK in 1986 he was recruited to present a Japanese-language satellite news service for NHK, Japan's national broadcaster - but left after two years in front of the camera to set up his own bilingual production company, Simon Prentis Associates. Over the next 25 years he travelled the world working on more than 250 programmes for Japanese television, while continuing to work as a freelance translator and interpreter for a select clientele - about which you can discover more on his website: https://www.simonprentis.net
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
August 8, 2022
The idea behind Speech! is simple. Simon Prentis argues that speech is what made us human, and has been the driving force of human evolution for roughly 3 million years, since our ancestors started to develop in quite different ways from our siblings, the chimpanzees. Specifically, and crucially, he suggests that instead of our large brain creating the opportunity for speech to evolve, it was the “invention” of speech that triggered the dramatic growth in brain size of our species, with all that implies.
But this key idea is not plucked from the air. The scenario is set up by an absorbing tale of all the things that people do and are, written in accessible language and based on a wealth of carefully researched source material. The personal side of the story is equally fascinating. Prentis is English, but spent so long in Japan that he absorbed the language and the culture, becoming fascinated by the way quite different languages affect — or, indeed, do not always affect — the way people view the world.
He also takes a view of the future of our species which may seem optimistic in the light of recent events in Ukraine, but should not be dismissed., “Language,” he says, “opens up the possibility of being able to discuss better ways of exploiting resources without having to physically fight for them”. But he cautions that “our brains evolved to fight long before we could talk.”
Whether you are an optimist or a pessimist, however, you will be intrigued by this book, which stands alongside the works of Steven Pinker and James Lovelock as a “must read” for our times.
March 1, 2022
A highly informative book, but it was more about how language ‘makes’ us socially human, rather than the developmental account, which I was expecting to read, of how language ‘made’ us human.
In pre-history, early hominins underwent a transformation. Brain capacity increased, simultaneously with muscle mass decreasing (97%). We might have expected an increased brain to require the energy of increasing physicality for hunting energy. But the author suggests that brain growth conferred something even more advantageous: language and the ability to coordinate human activity.
It is difficult to know precisely when these linguistic developments would have occurred. There was an explosion of cultural activity about 50,000 years ago, yet there are burial activities from 100,000 years ago.
I was hoping to read more about the history and science of the growth of language, perhaps contrasting it with animal communications and looking at anatomical developments. There was some input on these ideas, with discussion of Chomsky’s theory of a genetic predisposition to language. And there was analysis of syllable and consonant patterns in ancient languages, as well as a review of the idea that phonemes reduce in languages, as they diversify in distance from Africa.
The first and last chapters were the most informative in this respect.
The rest of the book became a bit ‘sociological,’ and in places opinionated. For example, the author clearly has negative views about religion, describing it as ‘the mother of all conspiracy theories’ (25%). But a discussion of language and its development does not require an analysis and judgement upon religion. Language development may well have been tied as a cause or effect in terms of ancient philosophical discussions. But the truth or falsity of the opinions involved in the discussions themselves is largely irrelevant, as it is the fact of the discussions which had significant impact upon the development of language.
In the middle of the book we hear a lot of interesting anecdotes. We hear about Skinner’s experiments with ‘superstitious’ pigeons. Maybe readers will be interested to hear that the News of the World used to pay its resident astrologer £100,000 a year (32%). And the story of the twins Jack Yufe and Oskar Stohr growing up as a Nazi and a Jew is interesting, especially given their behavioural similarities but violent differences of opinion (37%). But it was just not clear how any of these stories is really relevant to ‘how speech made us human.’
This is a hard book to rate. It is a pleasant read and readers will undoubtedly learn something from the anecdotes. But, personally, I felt increasingly disappointed with it, the further I read; as it wasn’t addressing the history and science of speech development, which is what I expected it to do.
In pre-history, early hominins underwent a transformation. Brain capacity increased, simultaneously with muscle mass decreasing (97%). We might have expected an increased brain to require the energy of increasing physicality for hunting energy. But the author suggests that brain growth conferred something even more advantageous: language and the ability to coordinate human activity.
It is difficult to know precisely when these linguistic developments would have occurred. There was an explosion of cultural activity about 50,000 years ago, yet there are burial activities from 100,000 years ago.
I was hoping to read more about the history and science of the growth of language, perhaps contrasting it with animal communications and looking at anatomical developments. There was some input on these ideas, with discussion of Chomsky’s theory of a genetic predisposition to language. And there was analysis of syllable and consonant patterns in ancient languages, as well as a review of the idea that phonemes reduce in languages, as they diversify in distance from Africa.
The first and last chapters were the most informative in this respect.
The rest of the book became a bit ‘sociological,’ and in places opinionated. For example, the author clearly has negative views about religion, describing it as ‘the mother of all conspiracy theories’ (25%). But a discussion of language and its development does not require an analysis and judgement upon religion. Language development may well have been tied as a cause or effect in terms of ancient philosophical discussions. But the truth or falsity of the opinions involved in the discussions themselves is largely irrelevant, as it is the fact of the discussions which had significant impact upon the development of language.
In the middle of the book we hear a lot of interesting anecdotes. We hear about Skinner’s experiments with ‘superstitious’ pigeons. Maybe readers will be interested to hear that the News of the World used to pay its resident astrologer £100,000 a year (32%). And the story of the twins Jack Yufe and Oskar Stohr growing up as a Nazi and a Jew is interesting, especially given their behavioural similarities but violent differences of opinion (37%). But it was just not clear how any of these stories is really relevant to ‘how speech made us human.’
This is a hard book to rate. It is a pleasant read and readers will undoubtedly learn something from the anecdotes. But, personally, I felt increasingly disappointed with it, the further I read; as it wasn’t addressing the history and science of speech development, which is what I expected it to do.
January 8, 2022
This interesting book declares 'language' as its topic, but seems as incurious about the current state of serious questions about language, as it is eager to furnish answers, often to questions that are uncomfortably out of date.
Marketing answers (rather than working hard to improve the questions) is the defining mode of ideology, rather than science, and ideology is always, in the last analysis, a call to action.
The call to action comes, in this case, after a shy introduction to Nikolai Kardashev's 1964 speculations about the "possible structure of supercivilisations", which turn out to be the author's central and structuring preoccupation. We are breathlessly instructed that in order to attain higher Kardashev levels, we must quickly shed all traces of cultural diversity. Oddly, in this context, the theory of history that the author advances is a deeply culturalist one, in which conceptual change is apparently in the driver's seat, and sufficient to account, for example, for the abolition of slavery. (The Civil War and the tensions between an industrialising North and an agricultural South are apparently secondary to the unexplained conceptual changes).
A top level summary might be:
- Culture is everything (I know I said "language" but I meant something broader),
- and my boomer culture leads to the stars,
- but yours is an obstacle.
Entertaining, but quixotic, reductionist, implicitly a little intolerant, and could be better read.
Marketing answers (rather than working hard to improve the questions) is the defining mode of ideology, rather than science, and ideology is always, in the last analysis, a call to action.
The call to action comes, in this case, after a shy introduction to Nikolai Kardashev's 1964 speculations about the "possible structure of supercivilisations", which turn out to be the author's central and structuring preoccupation. We are breathlessly instructed that in order to attain higher Kardashev levels, we must quickly shed all traces of cultural diversity. Oddly, in this context, the theory of history that the author advances is a deeply culturalist one, in which conceptual change is apparently in the driver's seat, and sufficient to account, for example, for the abolition of slavery. (The Civil War and the tensions between an industrialising North and an agricultural South are apparently secondary to the unexplained conceptual changes).
A top level summary might be:
- Culture is everything (I know I said "language" but I meant something broader),
- and my boomer culture leads to the stars,
- but yours is an obstacle.
Entertaining, but quixotic, reductionist, implicitly a little intolerant, and could be better read.
July 31, 2021
Simon Prentis’ book, Speech: How Language Made Us Human is a fascinating read and one which I have no hesitation in recommending. It opens up for discussion a subject so seemingly obvious, yet often ignored. It’s extremely well researched and written with insight, intelligence and humour.
August 11, 2022
This book is a fascinating account of the origins of language. The author details the social evolution of language use and how it has transformed our society into the civilization of today. A must-read for anyone interested in the connection between language, thought, communication, society, and evolution!
November 1, 2021
SIMON PRENTIS – SPEECH! HOW LANGUAGE MADE US HUMAN – KINDLE - 2021
The author is no phylogenist of language and despite remarkably interesting ideas and the a priori assumption that all languages can say everything in a way or another, he ignores the following elements and that is regrettable.
1- language is NEVER a simple sequence of noises, not even sounds. They are vowels and consonants from the very start. Monkeys do not have a language, but they have calls that are built the same way as our words: vowels that enable consonants to be uttered on a basic pattern C-V-C.
2- the difference between the "calls" of monkeys and human words is not in the difference between sonorous or vocal architectures of the items or units, but in the fact that human language invented the rotation of vowels and consonants. The basic call of the monkeys I know is "boom" often doubled up into "boom boom." It is a call for attention before any meaningful call can be uttered (note that only concerns males and the researchers who studied these monkeys know that women and the young are "speaking" when they are together, but no study has been made of their communication or “language”: sexism at work there). You can see, and this is true of human languages, a syllable is C-V-C with the possibility of having one consonant reduced to zero. If the monkeys I know had had or even had in the present this rotation of vowels and consonants (cat, bat, mat, pat, hat; cut, cot, cap, car, cam, cab, etc.) they could produce with the means they do have in their calls at least 125 or so calls, but they only have six or seven calls.
3- Question. Why did humans develop this rotation? Because they were able to utter or articulate a lot more vowels (not so many more, just two or three times more than monkeys, at times slightly more if we take into account the slight phonetic variations on each vowel according to their environment) and consonants.
4- Question: Why were Homo Sapiens (and probably, though less, older Hominins) able to produce many vowels and consonants? Because Homo Sapiens developed some mutations that enabled him to become a long distance, fast, bipedal runner, and these mutations were selected because they gave Homo Sapiens a great advantage in his hunting in the savanna, and they had a collateral side-effect: they expanded the breathing, articulatory and laryngeal and glottal flexibility and power with a higher level of innervation controlled and managed by the Broca zone in the brain that is the coordinator of all physical and physiological functions of the body. That's where Chomsky has it wrong because he is rewriting the Old Testament of his Bible. So many Caucasian or European linguists do the same, and note if you start from the Quran, you get the same genetic bias.*
5- That happened when Homo Sapiens emerged from his previous ancestors, Homo Erectus, Homo Ergaster, and now Homo Bodoensis. Neanderthals and Denisovans descended from Homo Erectus respectively in Europe (indirectly via Homo Heidelbergensis) and in Asia (we don't know more). Homo Sapiens was the first Hominin, to be a long-distance bipedal runner and that happened 300,000 years ago.
6- All references to the cognitive or cultural, or whatever other names, revolution between 70,000 (Hariri) and 45,000 years ago is from mostly Caucasian and European research centers and researchers a way to avoid answering the simple question: where did these Homo Sapiens come from and what communication did they have? By the way what communication did Homo Erectus, and all his descendants have? Read what Sally McBrearty has written and published on the subject.
7- Then you could avoid the Christian- or Mesopotamia-centered myth of the Tower of Babel. The three great linguistic families in the world are the results of three migrations out of BLACK Africa (the principle that ONLY Greenberg accepted). This erasing of the Black African origin of humanity is pure and simple European-centered racism developed a long time ago and linguistically devised by people like Humboldt and his Indo-Germanic languages.
8- Your NOT starting from these simple questions lets yourself be trapped by the Chomsky Semitic approach (meaning both Jewish and Islamic: the two religions agree on this point: language is a divine endowment, call it genetic to sound secular). You have to shift your thinking from common sense to a phylogenetic approach, but not the phylogenesis of biology. In fact, the phylogenesis of sociology, anthropology, and transfer it to linguistics: language is based on the brain's ability to discriminate patterns in what the senses provide the brain with and to remember them, meaning identify them in the brain in brain-code. Most animals who have a memory can do this. But man being able to develop the articulated language we know, he is able to develop a mind (Bertrand Russell and Buddhism) and language, meaning consonant-vowel clusters become words when they are attached to brain-code units, and then this language will become articulated language by embedding the communicational situation into the language itself, and that will produce the syntax (note you do not consider ergative languages for which the main spatial nominal element of a clause is the direct object that is submissive to or dominated by the temporal verbal element, and the agent is only secondary, meaning it is not a direct active agent), after the first articulation (vowels and consonants), and the second articulation (categorization of the lexical items as spatial or temporal). That general phylogeny is, in fact, developed in the three vast families of languages: Semitic or Afro-Asiatic root languages; isolating or character languages; and synthetic-analytical languages that can be either Turkic agglutinative languages or Indo-European and Indo Aryan languages (and Sanskrit is the ancestor of only the Indo-Aryan ones: there is a deeper original language that was common to all these people before they left the Iranian Plateau around 10-12,000 years ago, maybe slightly more, but after the peak of the Ice age, and these people arrived on this Iranian Plateau and stayed there sometime around 45,000 years ago, arriving from Black Africa of course.
9- My practice with languages like French, English, German, Pali, and a few others I practice as a linguist like Sumerian and Maya, is that you CANNOT translate the meaning of one language into any other language that easily and faithfully: it is not enough to be a black woman to be able to translate the poetry of a black poetess: translation is a profession that is not and should not be limited if not defined by any racial, cultural, gender, sexual, religious or philosophical parameters. One example: "to be or not to be that is the question." You can get what Deepl would give you: in French "être ou ne pas être, telle est la question." And the goal value of "to" repeated twice and negated the second time is not translated (is "not to be" and "to not be" the same thing?). In German: "Sein oder nicht sein, das ist hier die Frage." the loss of the goal or targeting meaning is even worse. And in both cases, the value of the stressed "the" in italics and with a special pronunciation that no actor would miss is of course lost. In French and German, it is as if the original was "being or not being, that is the question" with no emphasis on "the" and a loss of goal or targeting value with the two gerunds, if they are gerunds since they might be present participles since we do not have one single element to differentiate them as gerunds or present participles. I only took three languages that are remarkably close since English is a 50-50 mixture as for its French or Germanic origins.
I think Simon Prentis could really enrich a symposium on the subject of teaching foreign languages and translation. He surely would generate a deep discussion.
Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU
VERSION FRANÇAISE
L'auteur n'est pas un phylogéniste du langage et malgré des idées remarquablement intéressantes et le postulat a priori que toutes les langues peuvent tout dire d'une manière ou d'une autre, il ignore les éléments suivants et c'est regrettable.
1- La langue n'est JAMAIS une simple suite de bruits, ni même de sons. Ce sont des voyelles et des consonnes dès le départ. Les singes n'ont pas de langage, mais ils ont des cris qui sont construits de la même manière que nos mots : des voyelles qui permettent de prononcer des consonnes sur un schéma de base C-V-C.
2- La différence entre les "cris" des singes et les mots humains ne réside pas dans la différence entre les architectures sonores ou vocales des items ou unités, mais dans le fait que le langage humain a inventé la rotation des voyelles et des consonnes. Le cri de base des singes que je connais est "boom" souvent doublé en "boom boom". C'est un appel à l'attention avant que tout appel significatif puisse être prononcé (notez que seuls les mâles sont concernés et les chercheurs qui ont étudié ces singes savent que les femelles et les jeunes "parlent" quand ils sont ensemble, mais aucune étude n'a été faite sur leur communication ou leur "langage" : le sexisme est à l'œuvre là). Vous pouvez voir, et c'est vrai pour les langues humaines, qu’une syllabe est C-V-C avec la possibilité d'avoir une consonne réduite à zéro. Si les singes que je connais avaient eu ou même avaient dans le présent cette rotation des voyelles et des consonnes (cat, bat, mat, pat, hat ; cut, cot ; cap, car, cam, cab, etc.) ils pourraient produire avec les moyens qu'ils ont dans leurs cris au moins 125 cris ou plus, mais ils n'ont que six ou sept cris.
3- Question. Pourquoi les humains ont-ils développé cette rotation ? Parce qu'ils étaient capables de prononcer ou d'articuler beaucoup plus de voyelles (pas tellement plus, juste deux ou trois fois plus que les singes, parfois un peu plus si l'on tient compte des légères variations phonétiques de chaque voyelle en fonction de leur environnement) et de consonnes.
4- Question : Pourquoi Homo Sapiens (et probablement, bien que moins, les Homininés plus anciens) ont-ils été capables de produire de nombreuses voyelles et consonnes ? Parce que Homo Sapiens a développé certaines mutations qui lui ont permis de devenir un coureur bipède rapide longue-distance (de fond), et ces mutations ont été sélectionnées parce qu'elles ont donné à Homo Sapiens un grand avantage dans sa chasse dans la savane, et elles ont eu un effet secondaire collatéral : elles ont étendu la flexibilité et la puissance respiratoire, articulatoire, laryngée et glottale avec un niveau plus élevé d'innervation contrôlée et gérée par la zone de Broca dans le cerveau qui est le coordinateur de toutes les fonctions physiques et physiologiques du corps. C'est là que Chomsky se trompe car il réécrit l'Ancien Testament de sa Bible. De nombreux linguistes blancs ou européens font de même, et notez que si vous partez du Coran, vous obtenez le même biais génétique.
5- Cela s'est produit lorsque l'Homo Sapiens a émergé de ses ancêtres précédents, Homo Erectus, Homo Ergaster, et maintenant Homo Bodoensis. Les Néandertaliens et les Denisovans descendent d’Homo Erectus respectivement en Europe (indirectement via l'Homo Heidelbergensis) et en Asie (nous n'en savons pas plus). Homo Sapiens a été le premier homininé, à être un coureur bipède longue-distance et cela s'est produit il y a 300 000 ans.
6- Toutes les références à la révolution cognitive ou culturelle, ou tout autre nom qu’on lui donne, entre il y a 70.000 (Hariri) et 45.000 ans, proviennent de centres de recherche et de chercheurs principalement blancs et européens ; c'est une façon d'éviter de répondre à la simple question : d'où venaient ces Homo Sapiens et quelle communication avaient-ils ? D'ailleurs, quelle communication avaient Homo Erectus et tous ses descendants ? Lisez ce que Sally McBrearty a écrit et publié sur le sujet.
7- Vous pourriez alors éviter le mythe de la Tour de Babel, centré sur le christianisme ou la Mésopotamie. Les trois grandes familles linguistiques du monde sont le résultat de trois migrations à partir de l'Afrique NOIRE (principe que SEUL Greenberg a accepté). Cet effacement de l'origine africaine noire de l'humanité est un pur et simple racisme centré sur l'Europe, développé il y a longtemps et conçu linguistiquement par des gens comme Humboldt et ses langues indo-germaniques.
8- En ne partant PAS de ces questions simples, vous vous laissez piéger par l'approche sémitique de Chomsky (c'est-à-dire à la fois juive et islamique : les deux religions sont d'accord sur ce point : le langage est une dotation divine, appelez-la génétique pour paraître laïque). Il faut passer du bon sens à une approche phylogénétique, mais pas la phylogénèse de la biologie. En fait, la phylogénèse de la sociologie, de l'anthropologie, et la transférer à la linguistique : le langage est basé sur la capacité du cerveau à discriminer des modèles dans ce que les sens fournissent au cerveau et à s'en souvenir, c'est-à-dire à les identifier dans le cerveau en code cérébral. La plupart des animaux qui ont une mémoire peuvent le faire. Mais l'homme étant capable de développer le langage articulé que nous connaissons, il est capable de développer un esprit (Bertrand Russell et le bouddhisme : concept de « mind » en anglais) et un langage, c'est-à-dire que les groupes de consonnes et de voyelles deviennent des mots lorsqu'ils sont attachés à des unités de code cérébral, et ensuite ce langage deviendra un langage articulé en intégrant la situation de communication dans le langage lui-même, et cela produira la syntaxe (notez que l’auteur ne considère pas les langues ergatives pour lesquelles l'élément spatial nominal principal d'une proposition est l'objet direct qui est soumis à ou dominé par l'élément temporel verbal, et l'agent n'est que secondaire, c'est-à-dire qu'il n'est pas un agent actif direct), et ce après la première articulation (voyelles et consonnes), et la deuxième articulation (catégorisation des éléments lexicaux comme spatiaux ou temporels). Cette phylogénie générale est, en fait, développée dans les trois grandes familles de langues : Les langues sémitiques ou afro-asiatiques à racine ; les langues isolantes ou à caractères ; et les langues synthétiques-analytiques qui peuvent être soit des langues turkiques agglutinantes, soit des langues indo-européennes et indo-aryennes (et le sanskrit n'est l'ancêtre que des indo-aryennes : il y a une langue originelle plus profonde qui était commune à tous ces peuples avant qu'ils ne quittent le plateau iranien il y a environ 10-12 000 ans, peut-être un peu plus, mais après le pic de la période glaciaire, et ces peuples sont arrivés sur ce plateau iranien et y sont restés il y a environ 45 000 ans, arrivant d'Afrique noire bien sûr.
9- Ma pratique avec des langues comme le français, l'anglais, l'allemand, le pali, et quelques autres que je pratique en tant que linguiste comme le sumérien et le maya, est que vous NE POUVEZ PAS traduire le sens d'une langue dans une autre langue aussi facilement et fidèlement : il ne suffit pas d'être une femme noire pour pouvoir traduire la poésie d'une poétesse noire : la traduction est une profession qui n'est pas et ne devrait pas être limitée, voire définie par des paramètres raciaux, culturels, de genre, sexuels, religieux ou philosophiques. Un exemple : "Être ou ne pas être, telle est la question". Vous pouvez obtenir ce que Deepl vous donnerait : en français "être ou ne pas être, telle est la question." Et la valeur de but de "to" répétée deux fois et niée la deuxième fois n'est pas traduite (est-ce que "not to be" et "to not be" ont la même valeur ?). En allemand : " Sein oder nicht sein, das ist hier die Frage. ", la perte du sens de but ou de visée est encore pire. Et dans les deux cas, on perd bien sûr la valeur du " le " accentué, en italique et avec une prononciation spéciale que ne manquerait aucun acteur. En français et en allemand, c'est comme si l'original était “being or not being that is the question" sans accent sur "the" et une perte de valeur de but ou de visée avec les deux gérondifs, si ce sont des gérondifs puisqu'ils pourraient être des participes présents puisque nous n'avons pas un seul élément pour les différencier comme gérondifs ou participes présents. Je n'ai pris que trois langues qui sont remarquablement proches puisque l'anglais est une fusion 50-50 quant à ses origines françaises ou germaniques.
Je pense que Simon Prentis pourrait vraiment enrichir un symposium sur le thème de l'enseignement des langues étrangères et de la traduction. Il susciterait sûrement une discussion approfondie.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
The author is no phylogenist of language and despite remarkably interesting ideas and the a priori assumption that all languages can say everything in a way or another, he ignores the following elements and that is regrettable.
1- language is NEVER a simple sequence of noises, not even sounds. They are vowels and consonants from the very start. Monkeys do not have a language, but they have calls that are built the same way as our words: vowels that enable consonants to be uttered on a basic pattern C-V-C.
2- the difference between the "calls" of monkeys and human words is not in the difference between sonorous or vocal architectures of the items or units, but in the fact that human language invented the rotation of vowels and consonants. The basic call of the monkeys I know is "boom" often doubled up into "boom boom." It is a call for attention before any meaningful call can be uttered (note that only concerns males and the researchers who studied these monkeys know that women and the young are "speaking" when they are together, but no study has been made of their communication or “language”: sexism at work there). You can see, and this is true of human languages, a syllable is C-V-C with the possibility of having one consonant reduced to zero. If the monkeys I know had had or even had in the present this rotation of vowels and consonants (cat, bat, mat, pat, hat; cut, cot, cap, car, cam, cab, etc.) they could produce with the means they do have in their calls at least 125 or so calls, but they only have six or seven calls.
3- Question. Why did humans develop this rotation? Because they were able to utter or articulate a lot more vowels (not so many more, just two or three times more than monkeys, at times slightly more if we take into account the slight phonetic variations on each vowel according to their environment) and consonants.
4- Question: Why were Homo Sapiens (and probably, though less, older Hominins) able to produce many vowels and consonants? Because Homo Sapiens developed some mutations that enabled him to become a long distance, fast, bipedal runner, and these mutations were selected because they gave Homo Sapiens a great advantage in his hunting in the savanna, and they had a collateral side-effect: they expanded the breathing, articulatory and laryngeal and glottal flexibility and power with a higher level of innervation controlled and managed by the Broca zone in the brain that is the coordinator of all physical and physiological functions of the body. That's where Chomsky has it wrong because he is rewriting the Old Testament of his Bible. So many Caucasian or European linguists do the same, and note if you start from the Quran, you get the same genetic bias.*
5- That happened when Homo Sapiens emerged from his previous ancestors, Homo Erectus, Homo Ergaster, and now Homo Bodoensis. Neanderthals and Denisovans descended from Homo Erectus respectively in Europe (indirectly via Homo Heidelbergensis) and in Asia (we don't know more). Homo Sapiens was the first Hominin, to be a long-distance bipedal runner and that happened 300,000 years ago.
6- All references to the cognitive or cultural, or whatever other names, revolution between 70,000 (Hariri) and 45,000 years ago is from mostly Caucasian and European research centers and researchers a way to avoid answering the simple question: where did these Homo Sapiens come from and what communication did they have? By the way what communication did Homo Erectus, and all his descendants have? Read what Sally McBrearty has written and published on the subject.
7- Then you could avoid the Christian- or Mesopotamia-centered myth of the Tower of Babel. The three great linguistic families in the world are the results of three migrations out of BLACK Africa (the principle that ONLY Greenberg accepted). This erasing of the Black African origin of humanity is pure and simple European-centered racism developed a long time ago and linguistically devised by people like Humboldt and his Indo-Germanic languages.
8- Your NOT starting from these simple questions lets yourself be trapped by the Chomsky Semitic approach (meaning both Jewish and Islamic: the two religions agree on this point: language is a divine endowment, call it genetic to sound secular). You have to shift your thinking from common sense to a phylogenetic approach, but not the phylogenesis of biology. In fact, the phylogenesis of sociology, anthropology, and transfer it to linguistics: language is based on the brain's ability to discriminate patterns in what the senses provide the brain with and to remember them, meaning identify them in the brain in brain-code. Most animals who have a memory can do this. But man being able to develop the articulated language we know, he is able to develop a mind (Bertrand Russell and Buddhism) and language, meaning consonant-vowel clusters become words when they are attached to brain-code units, and then this language will become articulated language by embedding the communicational situation into the language itself, and that will produce the syntax (note you do not consider ergative languages for which the main spatial nominal element of a clause is the direct object that is submissive to or dominated by the temporal verbal element, and the agent is only secondary, meaning it is not a direct active agent), after the first articulation (vowels and consonants), and the second articulation (categorization of the lexical items as spatial or temporal). That general phylogeny is, in fact, developed in the three vast families of languages: Semitic or Afro-Asiatic root languages; isolating or character languages; and synthetic-analytical languages that can be either Turkic agglutinative languages or Indo-European and Indo Aryan languages (and Sanskrit is the ancestor of only the Indo-Aryan ones: there is a deeper original language that was common to all these people before they left the Iranian Plateau around 10-12,000 years ago, maybe slightly more, but after the peak of the Ice age, and these people arrived on this Iranian Plateau and stayed there sometime around 45,000 years ago, arriving from Black Africa of course.
9- My practice with languages like French, English, German, Pali, and a few others I practice as a linguist like Sumerian and Maya, is that you CANNOT translate the meaning of one language into any other language that easily and faithfully: it is not enough to be a black woman to be able to translate the poetry of a black poetess: translation is a profession that is not and should not be limited if not defined by any racial, cultural, gender, sexual, religious or philosophical parameters. One example: "to be or not to be that is the question." You can get what Deepl would give you: in French "être ou ne pas être, telle est la question." And the goal value of "to" repeated twice and negated the second time is not translated (is "not to be" and "to not be" the same thing?). In German: "Sein oder nicht sein, das ist hier die Frage." the loss of the goal or targeting meaning is even worse. And in both cases, the value of the stressed "the" in italics and with a special pronunciation that no actor would miss is of course lost. In French and German, it is as if the original was "being or not being, that is the question" with no emphasis on "the" and a loss of goal or targeting value with the two gerunds, if they are gerunds since they might be present participles since we do not have one single element to differentiate them as gerunds or present participles. I only took three languages that are remarkably close since English is a 50-50 mixture as for its French or Germanic origins.
I think Simon Prentis could really enrich a symposium on the subject of teaching foreign languages and translation. He surely would generate a deep discussion.
Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU
VERSION FRANÇAISE
L'auteur n'est pas un phylogéniste du langage et malgré des idées remarquablement intéressantes et le postulat a priori que toutes les langues peuvent tout dire d'une manière ou d'une autre, il ignore les éléments suivants et c'est regrettable.
1- La langue n'est JAMAIS une simple suite de bruits, ni même de sons. Ce sont des voyelles et des consonnes dès le départ. Les singes n'ont pas de langage, mais ils ont des cris qui sont construits de la même manière que nos mots : des voyelles qui permettent de prononcer des consonnes sur un schéma de base C-V-C.
2- La différence entre les "cris" des singes et les mots humains ne réside pas dans la différence entre les architectures sonores ou vocales des items ou unités, mais dans le fait que le langage humain a inventé la rotation des voyelles et des consonnes. Le cri de base des singes que je connais est "boom" souvent doublé en "boom boom". C'est un appel à l'attention avant que tout appel significatif puisse être prononcé (notez que seuls les mâles sont concernés et les chercheurs qui ont étudié ces singes savent que les femelles et les jeunes "parlent" quand ils sont ensemble, mais aucune étude n'a été faite sur leur communication ou leur "langage" : le sexisme est à l'œuvre là). Vous pouvez voir, et c'est vrai pour les langues humaines, qu’une syllabe est C-V-C avec la possibilité d'avoir une consonne réduite à zéro. Si les singes que je connais avaient eu ou même avaient dans le présent cette rotation des voyelles et des consonnes (cat, bat, mat, pat, hat ; cut, cot ; cap, car, cam, cab, etc.) ils pourraient produire avec les moyens qu'ils ont dans leurs cris au moins 125 cris ou plus, mais ils n'ont que six ou sept cris.
3- Question. Pourquoi les humains ont-ils développé cette rotation ? Parce qu'ils étaient capables de prononcer ou d'articuler beaucoup plus de voyelles (pas tellement plus, juste deux ou trois fois plus que les singes, parfois un peu plus si l'on tient compte des légères variations phonétiques de chaque voyelle en fonction de leur environnement) et de consonnes.
4- Question : Pourquoi Homo Sapiens (et probablement, bien que moins, les Homininés plus anciens) ont-ils été capables de produire de nombreuses voyelles et consonnes ? Parce que Homo Sapiens a développé certaines mutations qui lui ont permis de devenir un coureur bipède rapide longue-distance (de fond), et ces mutations ont été sélectionnées parce qu'elles ont donné à Homo Sapiens un grand avantage dans sa chasse dans la savane, et elles ont eu un effet secondaire collatéral : elles ont étendu la flexibilité et la puissance respiratoire, articulatoire, laryngée et glottale avec un niveau plus élevé d'innervation contrôlée et gérée par la zone de Broca dans le cerveau qui est le coordinateur de toutes les fonctions physiques et physiologiques du corps. C'est là que Chomsky se trompe car il réécrit l'Ancien Testament de sa Bible. De nombreux linguistes blancs ou européens font de même, et notez que si vous partez du Coran, vous obtenez le même biais génétique.
5- Cela s'est produit lorsque l'Homo Sapiens a émergé de ses ancêtres précédents, Homo Erectus, Homo Ergaster, et maintenant Homo Bodoensis. Les Néandertaliens et les Denisovans descendent d’Homo Erectus respectivement en Europe (indirectement via l'Homo Heidelbergensis) et en Asie (nous n'en savons pas plus). Homo Sapiens a été le premier homininé, à être un coureur bipède longue-distance et cela s'est produit il y a 300 000 ans.
6- Toutes les références à la révolution cognitive ou culturelle, ou tout autre nom qu’on lui donne, entre il y a 70.000 (Hariri) et 45.000 ans, proviennent de centres de recherche et de chercheurs principalement blancs et européens ; c'est une façon d'éviter de répondre à la simple question : d'où venaient ces Homo Sapiens et quelle communication avaient-ils ? D'ailleurs, quelle communication avaient Homo Erectus et tous ses descendants ? Lisez ce que Sally McBrearty a écrit et publié sur le sujet.
7- Vous pourriez alors éviter le mythe de la Tour de Babel, centré sur le christianisme ou la Mésopotamie. Les trois grandes familles linguistiques du monde sont le résultat de trois migrations à partir de l'Afrique NOIRE (principe que SEUL Greenberg a accepté). Cet effacement de l'origine africaine noire de l'humanité est un pur et simple racisme centré sur l'Europe, développé il y a longtemps et conçu linguistiquement par des gens comme Humboldt et ses langues indo-germaniques.
8- En ne partant PAS de ces questions simples, vous vous laissez piéger par l'approche sémitique de Chomsky (c'est-à-dire à la fois juive et islamique : les deux religions sont d'accord sur ce point : le langage est une dotation divine, appelez-la génétique pour paraître laïque). Il faut passer du bon sens à une approche phylogénétique, mais pas la phylogénèse de la biologie. En fait, la phylogénèse de la sociologie, de l'anthropologie, et la transférer à la linguistique : le langage est basé sur la capacité du cerveau à discriminer des modèles dans ce que les sens fournissent au cerveau et à s'en souvenir, c'est-à-dire à les identifier dans le cerveau en code cérébral. La plupart des animaux qui ont une mémoire peuvent le faire. Mais l'homme étant capable de développer le langage articulé que nous connaissons, il est capable de développer un esprit (Bertrand Russell et le bouddhisme : concept de « mind » en anglais) et un langage, c'est-à-dire que les groupes de consonnes et de voyelles deviennent des mots lorsqu'ils sont attachés à des unités de code cérébral, et ensuite ce langage deviendra un langage articulé en intégrant la situation de communication dans le langage lui-même, et cela produira la syntaxe (notez que l’auteur ne considère pas les langues ergatives pour lesquelles l'élément spatial nominal principal d'une proposition est l'objet direct qui est soumis à ou dominé par l'élément temporel verbal, et l'agent n'est que secondaire, c'est-à-dire qu'il n'est pas un agent actif direct), et ce après la première articulation (voyelles et consonnes), et la deuxième articulation (catégorisation des éléments lexicaux comme spatiaux ou temporels). Cette phylogénie générale est, en fait, développée dans les trois grandes familles de langues : Les langues sémitiques ou afro-asiatiques à racine ; les langues isolantes ou à caractères ; et les langues synthétiques-analytiques qui peuvent être soit des langues turkiques agglutinantes, soit des langues indo-européennes et indo-aryennes (et le sanskrit n'est l'ancêtre que des indo-aryennes : il y a une langue originelle plus profonde qui était commune à tous ces peuples avant qu'ils ne quittent le plateau iranien il y a environ 10-12 000 ans, peut-être un peu plus, mais après le pic de la période glaciaire, et ces peuples sont arrivés sur ce plateau iranien et y sont restés il y a environ 45 000 ans, arrivant d'Afrique noire bien sûr.
9- Ma pratique avec des langues comme le français, l'anglais, l'allemand, le pali, et quelques autres que je pratique en tant que linguiste comme le sumérien et le maya, est que vous NE POUVEZ PAS traduire le sens d'une langue dans une autre langue aussi facilement et fidèlement : il ne suffit pas d'être une femme noire pour pouvoir traduire la poésie d'une poétesse noire : la traduction est une profession qui n'est pas et ne devrait pas être limitée, voire définie par des paramètres raciaux, culturels, de genre, sexuels, religieux ou philosophiques. Un exemple : "Être ou ne pas être, telle est la question". Vous pouvez obtenir ce que Deepl vous donnerait : en français "être ou ne pas être, telle est la question." Et la valeur de but de "to" répétée deux fois et niée la deuxième fois n'est pas traduite (est-ce que "not to be" et "to not be" ont la même valeur ?). En allemand : " Sein oder nicht sein, das ist hier die Frage. ", la perte du sens de but ou de visée est encore pire. Et dans les deux cas, on perd bien sûr la valeur du " le " accentué, en italique et avec une prononciation spéciale que ne manquerait aucun acteur. En français et en allemand, c'est comme si l'original était “being or not being that is the question" sans accent sur "the" et une perte de valeur de but ou de visée avec les deux gérondifs, si ce sont des gérondifs puisqu'ils pourraient être des participes présents puisque nous n'avons pas un seul élément pour les différencier comme gérondifs ou participes présents. Je n'ai pris que trois langues qui sont remarquablement proches puisque l'anglais est une fusion 50-50 quant à ses origines françaises ou germaniques.
Je pense que Simon Prentis pourrait vraiment enrichir un symposium sur le thème de l'enseignement des langues étrangères et de la traduction. Il susciterait sûrement une discussion approfondie.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
February 28, 2024
I didn’t find this manifesto entertaining or ideas novel. It felt like a regurgitation of wiki-descriptions for the sake of potential ignorant readers. The disclaimer regarding missing direct citations for ‘widely known’ ideas seemed not only lazy, but also presumptuous in that some facts have been disproven, changing, or are yet highly contentious. The dots won’t connect unless you agree with his views on science, religion, and politics. Yes - we can look up things via Google search.
Despite, just because I didn’t like or agree with many of his statements, I did ENJOY a few presented thoughts. The reading was not a labor in total vain.
1. The words we use as fillers, affecting fluency. Excellent point. I teach adult English Language Learners and this is an aspect that when keen to adapt, is very helpful.
2. Language gives us an advantage. Awareness. It does change our relationship with the world. I experienced this myself, growing up in multi-language and multi-cultures. Adaptation is a sought after skill.
3. Music being a universal language. As a classical guitarist, pages 162-163 struck the right ‘chords’. There are numerous studies dedicated to vibration’s affects, including healing at a sub-cellular level. Feelings are universal, indeed. Fascinating.
4. I look forward to reading more from Susan Schaller, referenced regarding a deaf student’s epiphany. I appreciate learning more about the significance of connecting sounds/signs to reference a meaning. There are studies regarding the significance of what we learn from our mothers - not just language, but also social norms.
5. Monotheism. Very thought provoking overview. It’s those details and nuances that divide.
Overall, this book wasn’t what I expected. I’m glad I got through it, despite some of the thoughts I had to contend with. That doesn’t mean I wrestled - it means, I paused and continued. Objective met?
Despite, just because I didn’t like or agree with many of his statements, I did ENJOY a few presented thoughts. The reading was not a labor in total vain.
1. The words we use as fillers, affecting fluency. Excellent point. I teach adult English Language Learners and this is an aspect that when keen to adapt, is very helpful.
2. Language gives us an advantage. Awareness. It does change our relationship with the world. I experienced this myself, growing up in multi-language and multi-cultures. Adaptation is a sought after skill.
3. Music being a universal language. As a classical guitarist, pages 162-163 struck the right ‘chords’. There are numerous studies dedicated to vibration’s affects, including healing at a sub-cellular level. Feelings are universal, indeed. Fascinating.
4. I look forward to reading more from Susan Schaller, referenced regarding a deaf student’s epiphany. I appreciate learning more about the significance of connecting sounds/signs to reference a meaning. There are studies regarding the significance of what we learn from our mothers - not just language, but also social norms.
5. Monotheism. Very thought provoking overview. It’s those details and nuances that divide.
Overall, this book wasn’t what I expected. I’m glad I got through it, despite some of the thoughts I had to contend with. That doesn’t mean I wrestled - it means, I paused and continued. Objective met?
Read
August 28, 2024Nie takiej książki się spodziewałam. Po tytule „Mowa. Jak język uczynił nas ludźmi” Simona Prentisa (Wydawnictwo Czarna Owca) wyobrażałam sobie lingwistyczną podróż w przeszłość, porównania językoznawcze, może z językiem zwierząt, badania etymologii, informacje o tym, jak tworzy się język i słowa oraz w jaki sposób je kodujemy w swoich głowach. Tymczasem przeczytałam coś zupełnie innego.
Simon Prentis już we wstępie stawia tezę, że celem tej książki jest udowodnienie, że skoro mamy dar mowy, to powinniśmy ze sobą współpracować w skali globalnej, bo to język różni nas od innych gatunków. Autor dodaje w przedmowie, że odkąd stworzył pierwszą wersję książki, życie dowodzi, że ma rację: najpierw był COVID, a 24 lutego 2022 roku doszło do inwazji Rosji na suwerenne państwo. Pisze też o roku 2024 i potwornych aktach przemocy na Bliskim Wschodzie. Te przykłady podaje jako dowód na to, że czas się opamiętać i spełnić zadania, do jakich zobowiązaliśmy się jako ludzkość. Zestawia swoją teorię na zasadzie kontrastu z teorią Darwina, według której życie biologiczne to rywalizacja o niedostateczne zasoby. Nadzieję na zmianę widzi w języku, który może budować wspólnotę i umożliwia porozumienie bez sięgania po broń. Przygoda z mową to według Prentisa dowód na przewagę konwersacji nad konfrontacją; uważa, że to dzięki mowie wzrosła wielkość naszych mózgów. Autor chce nas przeprowadzić właśnie przez tę drogę od początków mowy do współczesności.
Ta książka jest jego debiutem, ale do wypowiedzi o języku uprawnia go wieloletnie doświadczenie w pracy tłumacza języka japońskiego. Widać to szczególnie w momentach, w których stara się udowodnić, jak języki mogą wpływać na postrzeganie świata.
Książka ma charakter popularnonaukowego eseju od sasa (języka) do lasa (człowieka). Nie jestem lingwistką, więc jedynie zapalam pomarańczowe światło przy opisie języka jako prostej sekwencji dźwięków, przy określeniu różnic między językiem ludzi a zwierząt, które wynikają z wokalizacji. Na szczęście w dodatku jest więcej informacji o rotacji samogłosek i spółgłosek oraz tworzeniu różnych kombinacji.
W książce znajduje się wiele ciekawostek dotyczących użycia języka. Na przykład, autor uświadamia znaczenie angielskiego słowa „disease” jako „dis-ease” (zaburzenie swobody) czy japońskiego określenia „business” (firma, interes) jako „busy-ness” (bycie zajętym), a tłumacz Dariusz Rossowski dodaje, że polskie słowo „dolegliwość” pochodzi od „zalegnięcia w łożu”. Prentis przedstawia również przykłady na to, jak słowa odrywają się od swoich pierwotnych znaczeń, co może być zabawne – jak choćby usłyszane w Szanghaju słowo „newbie” (nowicjusz), oznaczało „krowią pi*dę” i było odpowiednikiem angielskiego „the dog’s bollocks”, wyrażającego aprobatę (autor powołuje się tutaj na Ferdynanda de Saussure’a i mówi o reprezentacji słów).
Prentis zawiera także przykłady nieporozumień językowych, pokazując, że niektóre języki, jak japoński, mają wiele zaimków osobowych, które mogą wyrażać status społeczny, oraz że nie każdy język da się przełożyć na inny. Wskazuje również, że język jest ważnym elementem funkcjonowania wiary, ponieważ dzięki niemu można stworzyć wizję świata niewidzialnego dla żadnych zmysłów. Religia dostarcza narrację, a język daje możliwość kontynuowania tej rozmowy. Dodaje też, że jesteśmy w stanie dostrzec osobliwość innego języka i innej religii, ponieważ ta, w której się wychowaliśmy, wydaje się najnaturalniejsza.
W tym momencie autor znacznie odchodzi od głównego tematu, pisząc wciągająco i zabawnie, ale tworząc opowieść o ludzkości i każdej dziedzinie życia. Opowieść o mowie przeradza się w esej antropologa i socjologa, który zastanawia się, jak to się stało, że ludzie zaczęli brzydzić się nieogolonych miejsc intymnych. Porusza także kwestie stereotypów płciowych oraz trudności z utożsamieniem się z podziałem na płcie, a wszystko to omawia w rozdziale poświęconym naszym wyobrażeniom dotyczącym tożsamości – czy to płciowej, czy etnicznej.
Czasami autor pozwala sobie na zbyt duże uproszczenia, wskazując, że przestawienie liter w wyrazie „words” (słowa) daje „sword” (miecz) czy „sacred” (sakralny) i „scared” (przestraszony), co ma ukazywać metaforę języka jako „wolnej od przemocy drogi do życia w pokoju”. Jest to myślenie życzeniowe i poza byciem metaforą, nie ma innej wartości. Interesujące są za to historie z pracy tłumacza, a zwłaszcza ta związana z Yoko Ono i przetłumaczeniem sformułowanego przez nią zwrotu „Imagine Peace” na 24 języki (przy okazji, piosenkę Johna Lennona nazywa hymnem świata).
W książce „Mowa. Jak język uczynił nas ludźmi” znajdziemy wiele anegdot oraz przegląd licznych eksperymentów z uczeniem zwierząt ludzkiej mowy. Jest to zatem wielki dygresyjny esej o ludzkości, która posiadła dar mowy, a nadal nie potrafi go dobrze wykorzystać – dobrze, czyli do budowania wspólnoty. W opowieści o tym, że czas skończyć z bestialstwem, Prentis przywołuje znów zabawę w przestawianie liter w wyrazie „veto”, by powstało „vote” (głosowanie). Twierdzi jednak, że brakuje nam forum, na którym jako ludzkość moglibyśmy zgłaszać sprzeciw, wysłuchać racji stron i podejmować decyzje uwzględniające prawa człowieka. Bez takiego forum nie powstrzymamy terroryzmu. To zadanie powinno należeć do ONZ. Teraz trzeba tylko wstać i głośno powiedzieć: najwyższy czas, byśmy się porozumieli.
#współpracarecenzencka #mowa #simonprentis #popularnonaukowe #esej
Simon Prentis już we wstępie stawia tezę, że celem tej książki jest udowodnienie, że skoro mamy dar mowy, to powinniśmy ze sobą współpracować w skali globalnej, bo to język różni nas od innych gatunków. Autor dodaje w przedmowie, że odkąd stworzył pierwszą wersję książki, życie dowodzi, że ma rację: najpierw był COVID, a 24 lutego 2022 roku doszło do inwazji Rosji na suwerenne państwo. Pisze też o roku 2024 i potwornych aktach przemocy na Bliskim Wschodzie. Te przykłady podaje jako dowód na to, że czas się opamiętać i spełnić zadania, do jakich zobowiązaliśmy się jako ludzkość. Zestawia swoją teorię na zasadzie kontrastu z teorią Darwina, według której życie biologiczne to rywalizacja o niedostateczne zasoby. Nadzieję na zmianę widzi w języku, który może budować wspólnotę i umożliwia porozumienie bez sięgania po broń. Przygoda z mową to według Prentisa dowód na przewagę konwersacji nad konfrontacją; uważa, że to dzięki mowie wzrosła wielkość naszych mózgów. Autor chce nas przeprowadzić właśnie przez tę drogę od początków mowy do współczesności.
Ta książka jest jego debiutem, ale do wypowiedzi o języku uprawnia go wieloletnie doświadczenie w pracy tłumacza języka japońskiego. Widać to szczególnie w momentach, w których stara się udowodnić, jak języki mogą wpływać na postrzeganie świata.
Książka ma charakter popularnonaukowego eseju od sasa (języka) do lasa (człowieka). Nie jestem lingwistką, więc jedynie zapalam pomarańczowe światło przy opisie języka jako prostej sekwencji dźwięków, przy określeniu różnic między językiem ludzi a zwierząt, które wynikają z wokalizacji. Na szczęście w dodatku jest więcej informacji o rotacji samogłosek i spółgłosek oraz tworzeniu różnych kombinacji.
W książce znajduje się wiele ciekawostek dotyczących użycia języka. Na przykład, autor uświadamia znaczenie angielskiego słowa „disease” jako „dis-ease” (zaburzenie swobody) czy japońskiego określenia „business” (firma, interes) jako „busy-ness” (bycie zajętym), a tłumacz Dariusz Rossowski dodaje, że polskie słowo „dolegliwość” pochodzi od „zalegnięcia w łożu”. Prentis przedstawia również przykłady na to, jak słowa odrywają się od swoich pierwotnych znaczeń, co może być zabawne – jak choćby usłyszane w Szanghaju słowo „newbie” (nowicjusz), oznaczało „krowią pi*dę” i było odpowiednikiem angielskiego „the dog’s bollocks”, wyrażającego aprobatę (autor powołuje się tutaj na Ferdynanda de Saussure’a i mówi o reprezentacji słów).
Prentis zawiera także przykłady nieporozumień językowych, pokazując, że niektóre języki, jak japoński, mają wiele zaimków osobowych, które mogą wyrażać status społeczny, oraz że nie każdy język da się przełożyć na inny. Wskazuje również, że język jest ważnym elementem funkcjonowania wiary, ponieważ dzięki niemu można stworzyć wizję świata niewidzialnego dla żadnych zmysłów. Religia dostarcza narrację, a język daje możliwość kontynuowania tej rozmowy. Dodaje też, że jesteśmy w stanie dostrzec osobliwość innego języka i innej religii, ponieważ ta, w której się wychowaliśmy, wydaje się najnaturalniejsza.
W tym momencie autor znacznie odchodzi od głównego tematu, pisząc wciągająco i zabawnie, ale tworząc opowieść o ludzkości i każdej dziedzinie życia. Opowieść o mowie przeradza się w esej antropologa i socjologa, który zastanawia się, jak to się stało, że ludzie zaczęli brzydzić się nieogolonych miejsc intymnych. Porusza także kwestie stereotypów płciowych oraz trudności z utożsamieniem się z podziałem na płcie, a wszystko to omawia w rozdziale poświęconym naszym wyobrażeniom dotyczącym tożsamości – czy to płciowej, czy etnicznej.
Czasami autor pozwala sobie na zbyt duże uproszczenia, wskazując, że przestawienie liter w wyrazie „words” (słowa) daje „sword” (miecz) czy „sacred” (sakralny) i „scared” (przestraszony), co ma ukazywać metaforę języka jako „wolnej od przemocy drogi do życia w pokoju”. Jest to myślenie życzeniowe i poza byciem metaforą, nie ma innej wartości. Interesujące są za to historie z pracy tłumacza, a zwłaszcza ta związana z Yoko Ono i przetłumaczeniem sformułowanego przez nią zwrotu „Imagine Peace” na 24 języki (przy okazji, piosenkę Johna Lennona nazywa hymnem świata).
W książce „Mowa. Jak język uczynił nas ludźmi” znajdziemy wiele anegdot oraz przegląd licznych eksperymentów z uczeniem zwierząt ludzkiej mowy. Jest to zatem wielki dygresyjny esej o ludzkości, która posiadła dar mowy, a nadal nie potrafi go dobrze wykorzystać – dobrze, czyli do budowania wspólnoty. W opowieści o tym, że czas skończyć z bestialstwem, Prentis przywołuje znów zabawę w przestawianie liter w wyrazie „veto”, by powstało „vote” (głosowanie). Twierdzi jednak, że brakuje nam forum, na którym jako ludzkość moglibyśmy zgłaszać sprzeciw, wysłuchać racji stron i podejmować decyzje uwzględniające prawa człowieka. Bez takiego forum nie powstrzymamy terroryzmu. To zadanie powinno należeć do ONZ. Teraz trzeba tylko wstać i głośno powiedzieć: najwyższy czas, byśmy się porozumieli.
#współpracarecenzencka #mowa #simonprentis #popularnonaukowe #esej
December 3, 2022
Simon Prentis' book (2022) reads well and is entertaining. The book is a kind of a general praise of the importance of human language for us and everything we do and are. I felt it is actually more like a collection of 8 essays about various topics which are somehow, even loosely, or remotely, connected to language. The author is a professional translator and has MA in linguistics and apparently very interesting life story. He is literate, not only by the 2000 books he says he has in his study. I have much less in my study. However, my favorite popular books on language, for example, by Steven Pinker, Daniel Everett and Guy Deutscher, in my mind, stand at a higher ("academic") level compared to Prentis' 267-pager. When they tell a story about language, the language they use gives me an impression of a voice of a scientist who have done research and represents a carefully weighted opinion based on the knowledge of the time. Prentis' language, on the other hand, feels like a collection of something he has heard or read, which is probably also the case of most of the content in the other books. Quite often his statements have a scent of oversimplification and some stories were told much better in the other books. I feel the book was at its best and most original in the chapter about faith and language which has several entertaining observations about religion, language, and our thinking. The last chapter is on Wisdom is almost ideological statement for the peace of the world. Interestingly, the author has added to the the 2022 edition a preface commenting the Russian invasion to Ukraine in February 2022.
November 13, 2023
The book starts tolerably well, as the author begins to outline his idea that it is the power of speech which enabled humanity to dominate the world. This phase of the book lasts for three chapters, has some interesting, if unoriginal, anthropological theory, and one decent joke.
Then it all goes wrong. He starts expounding his Prentis Plan for Global Peace. Taking as his inspiration John Lennon’s “Imagine” and “Give Peace A Chance, he explains over more than 150 pages that Global Peace will be achieved if only people stop arguing and agree to Give Peace A Chance. It reads like an expanded version of a Miss World’s response to a question about her ambitions. His ignorant and fatuous diatribe reaches peak parody when he constructs a pacifist argument from the fact that the words “sword” and “words” are anagrams: “a useful metaphor for one of the key functions of language: its ability to offer a route to peace that avoids violence.” World peace? Piece of cake. For my next publication: How I finally discovered the Unified Field Theory of Physics by realising that Gravity Force is an anagram of Gravy Core Fit.
The book is published by Hogsaloft: effectively self-published. I’m not surprised.
Then it all goes wrong. He starts expounding his Prentis Plan for Global Peace. Taking as his inspiration John Lennon’s “Imagine” and “Give Peace A Chance, he explains over more than 150 pages that Global Peace will be achieved if only people stop arguing and agree to Give Peace A Chance. It reads like an expanded version of a Miss World’s response to a question about her ambitions. His ignorant and fatuous diatribe reaches peak parody when he constructs a pacifist argument from the fact that the words “sword” and “words” are anagrams: “a useful metaphor for one of the key functions of language: its ability to offer a route to peace that avoids violence.” World peace? Piece of cake. For my next publication: How I finally discovered the Unified Field Theory of Physics by realising that Gravity Force is an anagram of Gravy Core Fit.
The book is published by Hogsaloft: effectively self-published. I’m not surprised.
October 26, 2024
Świetna książka, napisana w sposób niezwykle interesujący i z humorem. Książka porusza temat genezy mowy oraz mowy w kontekście kultury, nauki, religii i polityki. Autor pisze o niezwykłej przewadze cywilizacyjnej jaką dała nam mowa oraz o tym jak nas ogranicza.
Zagadnienia dotyczące kultury, natury, psychologii, filozofii, wiary, religii, nauki, narkotyków, seksu, muzyki, mediów, polityki poruszone w sposób niezwykle ciekawy, okraszone licznymi przykładami z historii, badań naukowych oraz z doświadczeń zawodowych autora. Książkę czyta się łatwo i przyjemnie (może jedynie pierwszy rozdział jest trochę zagmatwany),wciąga przytaczanymi przykładami z życia oraz humorem. Autor ma niewątpliwie dar pisania o poważnych tematach w sposób przejrzysty, niezwykle ciekawy i bardzo dowcipny.
„Mowa. Jak język uczynił nas ludźmi” Simona Prentisa to książka dla każdego, nie tylko dla osób zainteresowanych socjologią i antropologią kultury. Mogą z niej z sukcesem skorzystać również ci z nas, którzy chcą zabłysnąć towarzysko ;-)
Zagadnienia dotyczące kultury, natury, psychologii, filozofii, wiary, religii, nauki, narkotyków, seksu, muzyki, mediów, polityki poruszone w sposób niezwykle ciekawy, okraszone licznymi przykładami z historii, badań naukowych oraz z doświadczeń zawodowych autora. Książkę czyta się łatwo i przyjemnie (może jedynie pierwszy rozdział jest trochę zagmatwany),wciąga przytaczanymi przykładami z życia oraz humorem. Autor ma niewątpliwie dar pisania o poważnych tematach w sposób przejrzysty, niezwykle ciekawy i bardzo dowcipny.
„Mowa. Jak język uczynił nas ludźmi” Simona Prentisa to książka dla każdego, nie tylko dla osób zainteresowanych socjologią i antropologią kultury. Mogą z niej z sukcesem skorzystać również ci z nas, którzy chcą zabłysnąć towarzysko ;-)
February 18, 2023
I started reading this book as a break from all heavy nonfiction and fiction books, and since speech and language is of my interests. Overall it's an enjoy read but it barely talks about speech or language and more about everything else. It is fine if the book title reflected that fact, but since it's not, it feels like false advertisement. The book read like a collection of essays on any topics that the author randomly came up with and loosely glued together by the main idea of language. It's a good mindless reading and I like the fact that each section is short and can be finished within ten minutes, but if you are the type of person who read to learn something practical, you will probably not learn much.
November 8, 2021
I must admit that I have not finished this book at the time I’m writing this review but I blame Simon Prentis. The trouble is that this book brings up so many interesting ideas that I keep having to stop reading to contemplate them. This book doesn’t read like a textbook though and I have been enjoying working my way through it. The writing is as entertaining as it is educational and that is something that is hard to pull off. I highly recommend this book to anyone who is human and is interested in how we became the way we are.
I received a free copy of this book via Booksprout and am voluntarily leaving a review.
I received a free copy of this book via Booksprout and am voluntarily leaving a review.
November 7, 2022
We would barely be human without speech, but for two million years we stumbled around without it. We all think our own tongue is the richest, smartest, most elegant/eloquent - and we're all delubded. Speech can work fine with a bare eight consonants and three vowels, like the Piraha of Brazil, or indeed with any other sounds our mouths can make. Speech is the trick that, more than any other human gift, brought us to where we are now, but there's still no certaintly about how we managed it. In this highly readable canter through the phonemes, world-class linguist and interpreter to the stars Simon Prentis teases out a stunningly simple explanation that makes sense to me. Exhilarating!
September 24, 2022
This book has little to do with language it offers little in the way of testable scientific proof as to how speech evolved in soft tissues.. It meanders philosophically with a diatribe of globalist sentiment and is clearly insinuating that the different races black or white or any other are inferior to mixed race people....because of bad genes. The book repeats the same tired arguments of classical Greece and the translations of translations translated from an erroneous translations thousands of years ago as proof of these globalist beliefs we have the fake station, Nasa , ancient mariners , and many other free Masonic heroes.The book ends up singing the praises of the U.N. And a One world globalist Government. Soros and Schwab would certainly approve
June 16, 2023
Packed with an enormous amount of interesting facts and information the plot turnes into an argumentation that won't leave me cold for the time to come. Incredibly inspirational about our unique ability to speak, what impact it actually had on our becoming when we actually think about it, and how we need to make use of this skill to secure Homo Sapiens a peaceful future. One of the best books I've read in a long time.
April 26, 2025
The first chapter is great and then it starts fading away slowly. By the end, it’s just a liberal ideology and lip service to the virtues of democracy. The author just wrote a bunch of ideas he likes and then retrospectively came up the the title/theme and tried to shoehorn speech in. But the initial chapter was superb and the overall collection of ideas fantastic, just with too much waffle that wasn’t related enough to feel it deserved to be included in the book of this subject.
Read
October 20, 2022This is a terrific book. Smart, thoughtful, well-written. Prentis tackles the question of how it came to be that human beings use grammar and the evolutionary significance of being able to conceptualize and share thinking.
I've read hundreds of books in the field of linguistics. This is one of the best.
I've read hundreds of books in the field of linguistics. This is one of the best.
December 31, 2021
Having spent half my life living in foreign countries including Japan about which the author discusses regularly, I found this book particularly insightful. A really interesting and relevant read in today's world.
April 12, 2024
This is a fantastic book. It has afforded me a truly valuable reading experience. I've been both challenged and enlightened by its content, especially that pertaining to the overtly political role language can play in shaping our world, and how we view ourselves within it, both individually and collectively. Very highly recommended.
November 8, 2021
Simon Prentis’ “SPEECH! How Language Made Us Human” Is it interesting and thought-provoking book about our journey as human beings from the grunts and groans to modern language.
May 1, 2024
Solid writing on the gift of language and verbal expression; the author makes some valid points; in particular the way language has a potential of its own to shape our thoughts and actions; it is not solely a conveyor of meaning but in effect and to a degree language actually determines how we think and see the world; also the idea of conciousness as ‘self-overhearing’ is worth sharing; recommended reading.
May 25, 2022
This book has nothing to do with how language made us human. As the author essentially says at the beginning of the book, the physiological mechanisms of human language are predominantly based on soft tissue, which doesn't fossilize. Therefore, we can't track the evolutionary changes that led to language.
This is basically a book of philosophy, a field of study requiring complex thought that can't exist without language. Apparently that's what the title means. Essentially the author uses logic to present his biased belief system. Everyone's belief system is biased, of course. But I didn't choose to read this book because I wanted to learn this author's opinions on stuff. I expected this to be an objective, scientific analysis of the origins of human language. It's not. There's nothing original or ground-breaking here. I've heard it all before.
Thanks, NetGalley, for the ARC I received. This is my honest and voluntary review.
This is basically a book of philosophy, a field of study requiring complex thought that can't exist without language. Apparently that's what the title means. Essentially the author uses logic to present his biased belief system. Everyone's belief system is biased, of course. But I didn't choose to read this book because I wanted to learn this author's opinions on stuff. I expected this to be an objective, scientific analysis of the origins of human language. It's not. There's nothing original or ground-breaking here. I've heard it all before.
Thanks, NetGalley, for the ARC I received. This is my honest and voluntary review.
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews