Ah - I didn't see the other thread - I've asked for a merge. Good to see it up on youtube for others!

Saw it last night on the beeb. Very nice indeed.
Also, I saw the tv ads last week and I was immediately reminded of this youtube video:

Pulsar wrote:Saw it last night on the beeb. Very nice indeed.
Also, I saw the tv ads last week and I was immediately reminded of this youtube video:

Lovely.

'twas every bit as good as expected. the lad's a natural born teacher.

A couple of questions for those who have been watching:

1) Does Fry only present the nativist argument for language (i.e. does he suggest that language is an "instinct" like Pinker suggests), or does he explore all the current theories?

2) I note that one of the summaries for the show suggests that he investigates why humans are the only species with this "gift": does this mean he doesn't delve into the research on animal language at all?

Mr.Samsa wrote:A couple of questions for those who have been watching:

1) Does Fry only present the nativist argument for language (i.e. does he suggest that language is an "instinct" like Pinker suggests), or does he explore all the current theories?

2) I note that one of the summaries for the show suggests that he investigates why humans are the only species with this "gift": does this mean he doesn't delve into the research on animal language at all?

I think the standpoint of the programme is to accept that language exists and take it from there. There are a few references to origins of speech but not much neurolinguistic theorising.

Animal language was covered in the first programme; I had the feeling that Fry wanted to move on to human language as soon as possible since the conclusion was that animal languages are extremely limited.

He's a literary man more than a biology man. It's very different from what it would have been if Dawkins had made it.

Fry's voice and accent! nomnomnom!

Last night was about writing.

I liked the bit about Chaucer. How he asked for more to be taken when copying his work.
It makes you wonder how the bible was copied. Apparently little care was taken about spelling as at the time there was no definite English language.

Jehannum wrote:I think the standpoint of the programme is to accept that language exists and take it from there. There are a few references to origins of speech but not much neurolinguistic theorising.

Thanks for the info, I'll have to get around to watching it when I get time.

Jehannum wrote:Animal language was covered in the first programme; I had the feeling that Fry wanted to move on to human language as soon as possible since the conclusion was that animal languages are extremely limited.

That's a shame, the research and extent of animal language is fascinating. It's unfortunate that it's so often overlooked due to overly narrow definitions of language - usually stemming from Chomsky's beliefs, which incidentally exclude a significant proportion of the verbal human population. I remember covering Chomsky's arguments on what constitutes 'language' in an evo psych course years ago, and we found that a guy in our class (who spoke normally, passed university exams up until that point no problem, etc) didn't meet the criteria for being able to use language..

Jehannum wrote:He's a literary man more than a biology man. It's very different from what it would have been if Dawkins had made it.

Undoubtedly. However, I dare say that Fry's program would be much more evidence-based and less speculative than one made by Dawkins..

biscuit