Sandwichman wrote: > > > Or, think of the evolution of language. Does anyone believe that > language -- and the physiological capabilities that enable speech -- > evolved for the purpose of communicating information or ideas? Yet > that is what we typically, perhaps unreflectively, assume that > language is "for". I would rather view language as the pure expression > of certain human characteristics with meaning occuring as a side > effect of the expressive impulse.
This seems overwhelmingly obvious to me. I would assume the capabilities were spandrels, accidents attached to other traits. But the _invention_ of speech, once the capabilities were there, must have been as an accompaniment "non-productive" purposes: games, ritual, dancing, with the rational babble gradually and, as you say, producing intentional communication as a side effect. And actually, _even today_, I would say the chief use of language is phatic -- i.e. babble merely to recocgnize the humanity of those addressed rather than to communicate anything. Communication will always remain secondary. Carrol
