LBT232-234康政

LBT232-234康政

撰寫人：3338 彭康政

The pages：232 ~ 234

I share some of Koehle's beliefs, but not all of them. However, what is important here is that his views necessarily imply that language is not a unique and integral behavioral development but a conglomeration of skills and abilities each of which has its own, independent phylogenetic history.

我分享了一些Koehle的概念，但不是全部。但是，這裡重要的事情是他的觀點必然暗示了語言不是唯一和不可或缺的行為發展，而是每項技能和能力所堆積起來的作用，獨立於生物發展史。

Except for one aspect of language, verbal behavior is a communication and amplification of ubiqutious zoological properties. There is a suggestion here of continuity with only a few recent innovations that lifted an earlier type of communication into the realm of human language. I reject this type of continuity theory on several counts.

除了語言的另一個方面，口頭行為是是整個動物世界通訊的普遍表現，這裡有連續性的一個建議，建議把一些新近的革新讓人類的語言進入早期的通訊，我數次拒絕了這種連貫的理論。　

(1)The prerequisite skills for language can only in a few cases be shown to have a fully documented phylogenetic history that reaches up to Homo sapiens.

語言的必要技能，從生物的發展史來看，有提到接近人類的語言技能只能在少數的情況下被顯示有被完整文獻的支持。

Actually, this is the exception.

實際上，這是例外。

Continuity theories are bolstered by citing examples from all over the animal kingdom in complete disregard for phylogenetic proximity to man.

連續性理論透過完整的生物發展學引用動物界中接近人類的例子來支援。

One parallel comes from birds; the next from insects; another from fishes; still another from aquatic mammals. Frequently, only one species within a given genus or family even possesses the trait, indicating clearly that we are dealing with species-specificities, probably all of comparatively recent date. 一個類似來自於鳥類；在昆蟲的隔壁，另外一個從魚類，再來就是水生哺乳動物，甚至只有一種物種在屬或科擁有特性，

The reason the examples are so disparate is that parallels are rare. This suggests accidental convergence (if, indeed, it is even that) rather than milestones within one continuous phylogeny.

例子如此不同的原因是因為少有相似的事。這暗示了聚合並非是連續理論的里程碑。

(2)In addition to being unsatisfactory proof for a continuous history, the examples customarily cited might even serve as evidence of discontinuities of skills and behavior patterns because of the sporadic occurrence on the branches of the phylogenetic tree.

除了在連續性的歷史上被作為不滿意的證據之外，因為在生物演進樹狀圖上零心的意外事件，照例引用的例子甚至可能作為技能和行為模式的間斷性證據。

(3)Language is not a loose association relatively independent abilities. There is no evidence that language comes about by a gradual accretion of skills. If this were so, we should be able to see all but a few of such skills in our closest relatives should show a few less, and so on down the line of evolution. Nothing like this seems to be the case.

語言沒有失去獨立能力的相關性，現在沒有證據可以說明語言透過技能逐漸增大發生。如果是這樣的話，我們就有可能看到在跟我們近親相關的物種上看到有關的技能，現在沒有這樣的案例。

(4)What is thought to be the beginning of language in parrots, monkeys, or dolphins, is empirically totally different from the beginnings of language in the human infants. 在從鸚鵡、猴子、或是海豚來思考語言的開始，和人類嬰兒語言的開始被認為是全然不同。

*At the most primitive stages of language acquisition, man does not imitate sounds, words, or sentences, but generates novel sound-sequence that are recognized as speech and language because the rules of generation bear certain formal similarities to those of the standard language.

*在語言獲得的最原始階段，人不模仿聲音、話、或是句子，而是產生被認為是說話和語言的聲音語段，因為世代擁有某種相似於那些標準語言的規則。

A healthy child does not ordinarily parrot (or at least no more often than at special occasions). The outstanding characteristics of language are the all-pervasive principles of productivity (see Chapter Eight). These principles are totally lacking from the examples of animal communication.

健康的孩子不比鸚鵡，語言傑出的特性是遍佈原則中的創造性，動物溝通的例子中正缺乏這些原則。

Another line of thought, different from O. Koehler's in approach but similar in theoretical structure, was contributed by Hockett (1960) and applied to animal communication by Altmann (1966) and other zoologists (see also Marler, 1961).

另外一個不同於O. Koehler的想法，Hockett建立的理論在節構上跟O. Koehler相似，也適用於Altmann和其他動物學家的動物溝通理論，Hockett使用另外的研究方法探討語言與動物演進之間的關係。

Hockett also begins with an analysis of language in terms of what we shall call for the moment essential attributes, and then examines a great variety of animal communication systems with a view to discovering how many and which of the essential attributes of human language are discernible in the communication of other species. In contrast to Koehler, his attributes are almost entirely of a logical nature (that is. Not physiological or psychological). He calls them design features, a terminology that expresses well the intent of the investigation: it is a study of the efficiency and effect of the communication system, the result and outcome, so to speak, of behavior rather than the mechanism of the behavior itself.

Hockett也從我們稱呼為必要屬性的模式分析語言的開始，然後檢查許多動物的溝通系統，跟人類說話的系統相比

I believe this approach is an innovation in biological investigations and it is apt to focus attention on many interesting aspects of communication, including the underscoring of parallel but different developments and phenotypic convergences by very different means. For instance, some of the design features that characterize language (Hockett distinguishes thirteen) are also characteristic of the so-called language of the honey bee (broadcast, rapid fading, total feedback, and perhaps specialization and discreteness), but the physical means used for the incorporation of these design features into “bee-language” are quite different from those of human language.

這種方法是在生物學調查方面的革新，它易於使注意聚集在溝通有趣的地方，以非常不同的方法包括平行和強調生物演進學的發展。

*It is true that human ontogeny need not be a recapitulation of the evolutionary events that led up to the formation of language capacity. On the other other hand. The first stages of language acquisition in the child are the only types of language that we may confidently label as primitive beginnings. We have no other empirical data which we could infer language-primitivity in a phylogonetic sense.

可以確定的是人類的個體發生不是導致語言能力的形成和進化的重點，我們沒有實驗數據推斷語言能力與動物演進的關係。

This is an important point. A study of design features may give us insight into some of the biases that enter into the process of natural selection, into the biological usefulness of certain features of animal communication but it is not relevant to the reconstruction of phylogenetic history.

這是一個重要的點，一個研究的特徵設計可以給我們有關天擇的偏見有些了解，進而聯繫到動物特徵於生物學的用途，但是卻和動物演進史不太相關。

For the latter we are only interested in the relation of types of anatomical structure (including motor coordination and sensory acuity), but we disregard the usefulness or efficiency of these features to the contemporary form.

我們只有對解剖的架構類型(包括運動協調和感覺敏銳)感興趣，但是當我們不理會這些特徵的用途或效率。

Thus whatever similarities exist on the surface between dolphins and fishes, shrews and rodents, bats and birds, pandas and bears must be ignored in our attempts to reconstruct the respective phylogenies and, in fact, the more abstract and pragmatic our criteria for comparison are, the less relevant will they be to a reconstruction of phylogenetic history. For instance, among the most abstract pragmatic criteria is successful adaptation to the environment; this may be accomplished by an apparent infinity of means. If we could rank-order adaptation in terms of success, it might tell us something about life in general, but it would tell us little about phyletic descent.

因此相近的表象存在於海豚和魚，地鼠和嚙齒動物，蝙蝠和鳥，熊貓和熊一定被忽視，在我們重建各自系統發育的嘗試內，事實上，有更多的摘和實用的尺度讓我們比較。