In "Tool and Sign in the Development of the Child" that sign development is not at all the same as tool development because in the latter instance the object of mastery is the environment and in the former it is the self.
I think that ontogenesis is only a special case of a much larger regularity: In tool development, the form of the tool follows the function of the tool quite closely. This is to a MUCH lesser extent true in the development of signs.
In some ways, it's just the opposite: for example, functional words (articles, prepositions, modal verbs) change much more slowly than those associated with style (e.g. slang expressions, politeness forms)
There's a very interesting article on the evolution of Polynesian by Deborah S. Rogers and Paul R. Ehrlich (yes, the Population Bomb fellow) in an old PNAS which uses a comparison of rates of change in functional modifications and stylistic modifications in Polynesian canoes. Rogers and Ehrlich argue that words that are related to to the "environment" change very slowly, while functors change much more quickly.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/9/3416.full.pdf+html
Doesn't this ENTIRELY depend on whether we are talking about a material or a social environment?
David Kellogg
Seoul National University of Education
In "Tool and Sign in the Development of the Child" that sign development is not at all the same as tool development because in the latter instance the object of mastery is the environment and in the former it is the self.
I think that ontogenesis is only a special case of a much larger regularity: In tool development, the form of the tool follows the function of the tool quite closely. This is to a MUCH lesser extent true in the development of signs.
In some ways, it's just the opposite: for example, functional words (articles, prepositions, modal verbs) change much more slowly than those associated with style (e.g. slang expressions, politeness forms)
There's a very interesting article on the evolution of Polynesian by Deborah S. Rogers and Paul R. Ehrlich (yes, the Population Bomb fellow) in an old PNAS which uses a comparison of rates of change in functional modifications and stylistic modifications in Polynesian canoes. Rogers and Ehrlich argue that words that are related to to the "environment" change very slowly, while functors change much more quickly.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/9/3416.full.pdf+html
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/9/3416.full.pdf+html
Doesn't this ENTIRELY depend on whether we are talking about a material or a social environment?
David Kellogg
Seoul National University of Education
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca