Musings on Language Evolution

I'm currently working hard (read: procrastinating) trying to write my undergraduate dissertation. I'm writing on the fascinating subject of language origins and evolution. I'm not sure why i love it because science has never really been my thing, and it is undeniably science, but i do. My focus is on Derek Bickerton's theory of protolanguage. He hypothesises a synthetic, compositional model of protolanguage which lacks syntax and involves single units of meaning being strung together to make small phrases. Some other theories of protolanguage involve holistic utterances, or small units that contain the whole meaning of a sentence. I personally find it impossible to consider that language evolved without some intermediate 'protolinguistic' stage. Yet that is exactly what Chomsky would have us believe... But don't even get me started on that. I'm currently at the stage in my dissertation of looking at all of the evidence available to us for language evolution. There is (as one might expect from something that doesn't fossilise) very little. Just a lot of just-so stories with evidence that does back them up, but also doesn't quite definitively prove anything. So overall, it's very very interesting! I hope to do more work on the subject in future, because it is such a young field, and there is so much more to be found out or discovered. 


One thing i'm wondering though, has anyone bothered trying to teach closed class, grammatical items to a bonobo yet? Because until then we can't rule out that they could learn full language. If nobody else fancies it, maybe i'll do a PhD and give it a shot! 

Kanzi the bonobo with Dr Sue Savage-Rumbaugh

As a side note, if anyone is interested, Northumbria University are hosting the 10th Symposium on the History of English Syntax  on the 21st and 22nd April. I know one of the organisers is Dr William van der Wurff of Newcastle University, so it promises to be a fascinating and enlightening event! 

The Rise of A Thousand Lies (INTERVIEW)

The Rise of A Thousand Lies


Newcastle metal band A Thousand Lies talk past, present and future.

It was with trepidation that I drove to Sunderland to join A Thousand Lies at their band practice. Not because of the band, but because of the location and my awful sense of direction. Chris Nesbitt met me outside and led me and my photographer through a maze of corridors in quite an intimidating building. “It smells in there, I hope you don’t mind” he warned us. It turned out he wasn’t joking.

The room was so dark that it took a while for my eyes to adjust, and so humid and moist that my shirt was damp when I left. In such a small room I felt conscious of being entirely in the way. Beer cans littered the amps and cables snaked all over the hideous carpet. I couldn’t help but think that I wouldn’t feel too safe in the event of a fire. The band seem used to all this though.

A Thousand Lies is made up of five guys with a shared passion for the music. Drummer Dave McQuillan, guitarist Steve Barclay and bassist Stephen Bagnall are all from Sunderland, whilst guitarist Andrew Bright and singer Chris Nesbitt call Newcastle home, but living on different sides of the Tyne doesn’t seem to affect them any. There have been a few changes over the years before A Thousand Lies became the band they are today. Stephen Bagnall says “It was originally me, Brighty and Dave, with Dave on guitar and singing, Brighty on guitar and me on bass, when we were about 13, so [the band started] about 12 years ago now, just doing Metallica covers and what not.”

“Just learning how to play” adds Andrew Bright, “the four of us went to school [together], just not Chris”. Steve Barclay joined the band when he was about 16 years old, and started playing guitar for them, at which point Dave moved to drums, but they were still just playing covers. “Then they started playing fucking cock rock, and I went in to death metal, and eventually we all came back as A Thousand Lies but I was off for a bit, and they had two other piece of shit drummers before me!” Dave McQuillan says, causing everyone to laugh for a while.

“We were always trying to find a singer though, even when Dave was in the band doing it, it was just kinda, he sang because nobody else was there to sing. We found a singer! Eventually! ” Barclay laughs. It was only when they found Chris Nesbitt that their old band disbanded and A Thousand Lies was officially born. Although there is some confusion over the timing of all these events, “That was 2006” asserts Bright, and is met by a chorus of “five”, “end of 2005, aye”. “Start of 2006 one might say...” he insists and everyone laughs. “The 13th month of 2005” is the final agreement! “We’ve all had a bash at doing bass, drums, guitar, but we’re kinda settled now on what we like.” Bright reflects.

One of Chris Nesbitt’s first acts within the band was to come up with the lyrics to their very old song ‘Should Not Be’. One of the first songs that they did as a band, Bright comments that it’s a song they never play anymore.

A Thousand Lies have an individual sound, and despite being influenced by other bands they don’t compromise themselves by sounding too much like anyone else. Every song has a similar theme, but every song is different, and Bright feels that they’re becoming “heavier and more melodic”. With regards to the writing process, Bagnall comments that “it’s a lot more united now”. He draws reference to their old days as Stronger than Death, “We used to have songs that were written by [Steve], songs that were written by Brighty, and they were just so different! There’d be a thrash one, a groove one, an epic one and then a kinda other one...” Song writing is now a joint effort and in my opinion it’s working for them, damned well. Apparently they can be highly critical of each others’ ideas though, “You cannot be in this band unless you can handle some fucking grief like!”

Having been gigging on the local music scene for some time, fans at their shows tend to know all the words to their most popular songs. So the band were quite anxious when they tried out some new material at a recent gig at Newcastle rock bar, Trillians. Lead singer, Chris Nesbitt (lounging across the room looking quite comfortable, “I’m not posing I just have bad posture!”) thinks they may have played too much, but as Bright says, with that sort of stuff it’s just trial and error. “Been working on nothing but new material at the moment, cabin fever is setting in!” Nesbitt jokes. “We’re not really gigging as much as we’d like” Bright adds. They currently have two new songs recorded for their forthcoming album, and they’re working on another six. The plan is to get them recorded by June, then gig as much as possible. One of the new songs they played at Trillians was a complete change of pace for the band, and a surprise for the audience of loyal fans. A ballad, called ‘Dies in Me’. “The rest of [the set] was pounding, then there was just this nice fucking melodic ballad thing in the middle of it!” McQuillan laughs. Barclay thinks that the audience weren’t sure how to take it, because it was a completely different style for them. However, from where I was standing in the audience, it seemed to go down very well.

The recent buzz on facebook surrounding A Thousand Lies has been talk of an upcoming DVD. And there’s the fact that I’ve had a camcorder shoved in my face by Bright at every one of their gigs I’ve been to recently. (He laughs as he finishes my sentence for me). It’s been in the making since December, and has taken until now to complete. Bright takes full credit for this one, putting his hands up and saying “that’s all my fault - Basically all the footage has come from last year. We went up to Shetland to do a thing called Vunk fest. That was really cool. There were loads of bands from Holland, England, Ireland, and Scotland. We did loads of big gigs last year. Full Throttle festival was really cool. It’s just us being stupid and pissed, and all you guys coming to the gigs and having a laugh. It’s all on video!” Barclay compares the DVD to the Pantera home videos. It’s a look at what goes on behind the scenes (which I can only imagine is hilarious debauchery), and Nesbitt sums it up as “30 minutes of stupidity really”. Well I for one can’t wait. It’s due out with a live CD in June before they take off to play Vunk fest again, so “stay tuned!”

Touring the country sounds like an intimidating feat for a relatively small band from the North East, but A Thousand Lies have done it and plan to do it again. At the end of June they will embark on the “road to Vunk tour”, hitting Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Edinburgh, Aberdeen then on to Shetland. They’re touring with a band called Semperfi from Aberdeen who they’ve played with a lot in the past. When on tour, Nesbitt finds that the crowd “don’t know [the songs] but they love the shows”, and apparently the Scotland crowd are awesome. They’re “nuts” and they “love buying merchandise”, sounds like what every band needs. One of the factors that comes into it is that in some areas of Scotland there’s not much going on, whereas in Newcastle there’s a few bands playing everyday. “We had one gig up in Elgin, Scotland, it was us and Ten Tonne Dozer from Shetland, and we had a local band on first. It was like 5 quid a ticket, and it was packed, and the crowd were like “oh yeah, we heard there were a band on so we just come down [sic]”, it just never happens here”, Barclay explains, “it was rammed, they were swinging from the rafters of the building! We didn’t think there were that many people in Elgin!”

On the opposite end of the scale, they don’t have as fond a memory of gigs in London. “It’s hard going like, they’re a bunch of cunts” McQuillan says, only half joking. Bright thinks that “it’s not really a metal town, it’s a glam town”. One of the problems being that there’s just so much going on there. On the same night they played in Camden, there were seven other gigs going on just in that area. Vying for attention against that many other bands when you’re metal heads from the north must be difficult. “It’s all about making money down there”, Bagnall says, “They gave us a load of tickets and expected us to sell like 40 tickets down in London, when we knew about four people down there!” Despite these setbacks, they’ve played The Underworld, which is a renowned venue and fairly impressive in my opinion. Down south they’re often the heaviest band on the bill, but people still love them. They tell me that venues in London often say “yeah you can play, but it’s £500 for the room”, which Bright explains is a problem... “We’re just not the best looking guys to fill a place full of fucking people like” he laughs.

Back home, their favourite venue is Trillians, and that’s probably the consensus amongst most local bands. “The O2’s awesome, but it’s nothing compared to Trills”. They played with an American band called Tesla on the main stage of the Academy a couple of years ago, and absolutely loved it. However, they still consider Trillians to be the hub of the Newcastle rock scene. “When you get a group of people who really want to be there, and love music just for what it is, not about anything else, they’re the best gigs” says Bright.

When asked to pick a favourite song they all pause for a few seconds thought, then decide that there is no collective favourite song, however they do agree that a song they pretty much always play is ‘And So The Story Goes’. Another is ‘Become How We Were’, which is about “epic things”, or so I was led to believe. Apparently it’s actually about being hung-over. They woke up one morning lying next to an unopened kebab, a bottle of Southern Comfort and a bottle of cider, and wrote a song about it. “Chris’ lyrics make very mundane things sound cool! We spend ages on the lyrics, and they’re all about getting pissed”. McQuillan loves to play the outro to ‘Become How We Were’, describing it as “epic” and “awesome”. Nesbitt’s favourite song to perform is ‘Last of the Believers’ because “it’s a rip-roaring kick to the nads”. He adds, “it’s a good song you can look at people with and just fucking stare at them in the face and go “I will kill you!” Bright’s favourite song is ‘Gripping Ice’, because it’s “fast, groovy with lots of shred in it” and has elements of pretty much everything they do as a band. They then turn on me when I admit my favourite song is ‘the Hound’, “Interview time! Why do you like the Hound?” [laughs]. All I can tell them is that it got stuck in my head for weeks, and I never got sick of it. I can see why it’s so hard to agree when they have so many awesome tunes to choose from. There’s something special about each of them that could make it a potential favourite.

For such talented musicians (yes we were treated to a private performance!), there has to be a future. A Thousand Lies jokingly envision a future in which they’d still be in this very room working on these new songs. Bright says “In all seriousness, every band would answer that the same, we just want to be bigger than we are now. We want to be still doing this, still getting sweaty and writing songs, hopefully with bigger gigs, bigger stages”. Barclay would like to be able to afford to not have to work (“not Axl Rose loaded” [laughs]), so that they could just focus on the band. “When someone asks you what you do, to be able to go “I’m in a band”, how cool is that?” Bagnall adds. “Living the dream!” This seems like a humble ambition, and one that with all their talent, hard work and charisma, they are so deserving of achieving.

A Thousand Lies and Semperfi are playing at Trillians Rock Bar on Friday 1st July.

Lady Gaga - Born This Way (REVIEW)

Lady Gaga – Born This Way

4.5/5

In true Lady Gaga fashion this album is way out there. On first listen, you can't be blamed for thinking “WTF?”. But on second listen, it suddenly dawns on you, “Yeah. This is awesome”. Unlike her last offering, The Fame Monster, there is no skimping on quantity for quality. Born This Way  is packed full of both. It consists of 14 new songs that are incredibly addictive, definitely no filler material in sight. There are more than a few religious references in this album, forming a semantic field running beneath the songs and tying them together conceptually - either she's returning to her Catholic roots or trying to piss some people off!

The first single from the album, also called Born This Way, is an anthem for all Gaga's ridiculously loyal fans. It's so unbelievably catchy that after one listen I knew most of the words, which happen to send an inspiring message: to love who you are and never try to change. Unsurprisingly, the fabulous pop song is the fastest-selling single in iTunes history, selling a staggering one million copies in just five days.

The second controversial single, Judas, is also a hit in my opinion. Once you get past how crazy it all sounds, you realise you can't stop singing it. And I'm fairly sure that Judas is a metaphor for some sleaze-bag guy that she keeps getting back with despite him betraying her constantly, not another name for Jesus, as some confused American Christians have decided. Regardless, it is one heck of a tune.

Other stand out tracks on the album include: Scheiße, which mixes German, English and irresistible dance beats; Hair, a heartfelt song in the style of an 80's rock power ballad, about hair (of course); Bloody Mary, which kind of scares me, in the best way possible; and The Edge of Glory, another perfect anthemic pop song.

But who am I kidding, there pretty much isn't a track that doesn't stand out. They are all different and brilliantly unique. The album takes influence from so many sources, cultures and eras. The first track Marry The Night  sounds like a 90's dance tune, and is surely just as timeless, whilst other songs are obviously influenced by 80's pop and rock. In songs like Hair, Lady Gaga really shows off what she can do with her voice, proving she's not just a one trick pony by sounding like a member of Heart. Despite the likenesses you can draw to other music, it all sounds so new and exciting.

As an artist, Lady Gaga drips with talent and likability. The respect she has for her fans, and the respect she gains in return is admirable. Lady Gaga is all about the in your face excellence. There's no room for quiet brilliance here. I honestly can't wait to hear what she does next. I thought that she would struggle to top amazingly successful hits like Bad Romance  and Paparazzi  but i clearly underestimated her. There is nothing this woman can't do.

Yes to fairer votes!

The election's tomorrow (5th May) guys. Who's voting YES to fairer votes?
Here's some common misconceptions about AV explained courtesy of http://www.yestofairervotes.org/

The defenders of the status quo don’t want you to know what the change to AV really means.

They will say anything to stop giving voters more of a say, and defending the old ‘jobs for life’ culture at Westminster. They will say anything to defend a system that means:

* MPs can win seats with only 1 in 3 voters voting for them;
* MPs can have safe seats for life even though the majority of their constituents haven’t voted for them;
* MPs don’t have to reach out to secure over 50% of the vote in their constituencies.

But the truth is that the AV system is a small change that will make a big difference – making MPs work harder to get and stay elected, and giving you more of a say. No wonder the old political establishment will say anything to stop it happening.

So let’s separate the fact from the fiction….

Myth 1) AV will cost us £250 million

The only piece of equipment you need to vote with AV is a pencil.

The No camp’s sums, like their arguments, simply don’t add up. Electronic counting machines aren’t an issue in this referendum.

Australia has hand counted its elections for 8 decades. The £130 million of make-believe machines don’t exist in Australia and won’t exist in the UK.

AV will keep what is best about our current system – the link between an MP serving their local constituency – but strengthens it by making MPs work harder to get elected and giving voters more of a say. Short on arguments the No campaign are trying to claim we can’t afford change. After the expenses crisis we can’t afford not to.

Myth 2) AV is too confusing

Few people would be confused by this. Voters put a ‘1’ by their first choice, a ‘2’ by their second choice, a ‘3’ by their third choice and so on. The logic’s familiar enough to anyone who’s ever asked a friend to pop down to the shops for a coke and said, “If they’re out of that I’ll have a lemonade.”

Some people have a very low estimation of the British public.

Myth 3) AV helps the BNP

The BNP have already called on their supporters to back a ‘No’ vote. Currently because MPs can get elected with support from less than 1 in 3 voters, there is always a risk that extremist parties can get in.

The BNP have learnt this lesson, and have used it to scrape wins in town halls across Britain. With AV, no-one can get elected unless most people back them. Therefore the risk of extremist parties getting in by the back door is eliminated.

Myth 4) No one uses AV

AV is a tried and tested system. In Britain millions of people in businesses, charities, and trade unions already use it. Political parties use it to elect their leaders. MPs themselves use it to elect their Speaker and their officials.

When politicians are the voters – when they are electing their own leaders – AV is the system they choose. When you need a real winner who needs to speak for the majority AV is the go-to system.

Myth 5) AV means some people get two votes

No. With AV everyone gets one vote. The difference is that AV gives you a vote that really counts and more of a say on who your local MP is. If your first choice gets knocked out your vote is transferred to your second preference. Whether you just vote 1 for your favourite candidate or list a preference for every candidate on the ballot only one vote will be counted.

If you go to the chip shop, and order cod and chips but they are out of cod, and you choose pie and chips instead, you have still only had one meal.

Myth 6) AV means more hung parliaments

No. Hung parliaments are no more likely with AV. And as you might have noticed First Past the Post has not given Britain any special immunity to hung parliaments.

Britain has experienced hung parliaments in the 1920s, 1970s and in 2010, and had periods in the 1950s, 1960s and 1990s where a single party was unable to effectively govern alone. Canada, which uses First Past the Post, has permanent hung parliaments. Australia uses AV, and has returned its first hung parliament in 38 elections.

Hung parliaments occur if enough voters support a third party. AV gives voters a greater say over candidates in their constituency. How they vote is up to them.

Myth 7) AV means more tactical voting

No. AV simply eliminates the need for it. Why should we have to abandon the party we actually support, to prevent the party we least support getting in? The dilemma facing millions of voters is often characterised as the choice between “voting with your head or your heart”. AV allows people to do both.

AV offers an honest vote. It gives everyone a chance to vote sincerely for the candidates they really want knowing their vote can go further.

Myth 8) AV weakens the constituency link

No. AV keeps the link and makes it stronger. Politicians like to talk about their constituency link. And a lot of them seem to enjoy it a lot more than the voters.

Many of our MPs currently have a pretty dodgy link to their constituents. Barely a third of MPs can speak for the majority of their voters. AV strengthens the link by giving people the MPs they actually voted for. AV forces complacent MPs

Myth 9) AV forces you to give a second preference

No. You can vote for as few or as many candidates as you like. AV gives you the freedom to vote sincerely for any number of candidates you feel are up to the job.

You aren’t forced to vote for any candidate you don’t want. If you only want to support one candidate you can. Just mark an ‘X’ as you did before.

Myth 10) AV means you end up with the least worst candidate

No. First Past the Post just lets in winners that most of voters didn’t want. AV ensures a winning candidate has to work harder and go further to secure support from a majority. That’s what’s needed to be ‘best’, and may explain why politicians are so keen on AV when electing their own…

When Hollywood recently dumped First Past the Post for AV, they didn’t change the wording on the statuette to Academy Award for Least Worst Picture. They wanted a ‘Best Picture’ winner that could deliver on that promise.

Myth 11) But First Past the Post is a British tradition…

Our parliament is not a museum. There has always been evolution in our politics, and today AV is the logical next step - an ‘upgrade’ to First Past the Post.

The secret ballot, votes for women, and votes for working people were all innovations once, and met with opposition. These changes didn’t rip up the rule book, but they were necessary to improve the way we do politics.

Voters aren’t looking for a revolution. They’re looking for a simple change that preserves and improves on what’s come before.

Bickerton on Fitch

In response to W. Tecumseh Fitch's post "Musical protolanguage: Darwin's theory of language evolution revisited" (2/12/2009), Derek Bickerton sent the commentary presented below.

[Guest post by Derek Bickerton]
I yield to no-one in my admiration of Darwin. But admiration should not blind us to the fact that in many cases he was, inevitably, limited by the state of knowledge in his time. Not only Mendelian genetics, but also almost the entire ancestry of humans, was wholly unknown to him; ethology and the study of non-human communication had yet to be systematically developed, and linguistics still lay in the womb of philology. It is truly amazing, not that he was sometimes wrong, but that he was so often and so stunningly right.

He was right when he saw language as the seed, rather than the fruit, of human intelligence. But appealing as the notion is, he was wrong in proposing a scenario in which language issued from a "musical protolanguage". Tecumseh Fitch argues that his own account, developed from Darwin's, is soundly based on principles of evolutionary biology. It is therefore somewhat surprising that his account pays as little attention to the evolution of humans (and the ways in which this evolution differed from that of other primates) as do those of biologically-naïve linguists or psychologists.

The notion of a terrestrial and heavily-predated primate indulging in any form of vocal activity-especially one that must, in quantity as well as quality, have exceeded those of all other primates barring gibbons-is simply bizarre, as I point out in a chapter of my book Adam's Tongue (out next month) devoted to the "singing ape" hypothesis:

"What could possibly have been the functions of song for a pre-human species in largely treeless grasslands? Song as a pair-bonding mechanism is highly unlikely. Human ancestors probably weren't monogamous-great apes aren't, and neither are we, even if we try or pretend to be, so a monogamous interval at any time in the past looks unlikely. But suppose we did go through a monogamous period. If two mates don't happen to be out of sight of one another up two different trees, there are countless more effective ways of bonding than yodeling at each other.

"Human ancestors probably weren't territorial, either-at least not in the sense of holding small, well-defined chunks of territory. Most likely they had a fission-fusion social structure, like that of contemporary apes, that's to say groups would be continually splitting up and reforming, merging with other groups. In open terrain, where different groups might utilize the same areas at different times without conflict or even contact, what would be the point of noisily-defended frontiers?

"Furthermore, the terrains in which gibbons and human ancestors lived were such that for maintaining contact sound was essential in one and useless, even dangerous, in the other…On the savanna, where there are beasts with keen hearing far larger and more lethal than our ancestors, to sing out with any frequency would have been to write one's own death warrant. Moreover, the absence of trees and the level or undulating nature of most savannas means that, in contrast with the rain-forest, animals are visible at considerable distances. To be out of sight is, under those conditions, almost always to be out of earshot–there's little point in yelling and hoping your friends will hear you.

"To assume that, even if our ancestors had sung before, they would go on singing under these conditions is absurd-something you can do only if you think that behavior and environment are completely divorced from one another… Conditions on the savanna were such that while they lived there our ancestors very probably produced less sound than our ape relatives, not more. If this was indeed the case, a single source for music and language becomes highly unlikely. Unless, of course, someone succeeds in coming up with some function pre-humans had to perform, under those same savanna conditions, that they couldn't have performed by any means other than by singing. It's unlikely anyone will, but never say never in science."

To persuade us of the "musical protolanguage" theory, Tecumseh will have to come up with a scenario in which singing (of some kind) somehow increased human fitness. Here he has proposed mother-child interaction (as already suggested by Dean Falk in a recent article, "Prelinguistic evolution in early hominins: Whence motherese?", Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27(4):491-503, 2004). The problem with this is that all other primates have mother-child interactions, but only one has picked on this kind. Why? Why humans? And this doesn't end the problems that "musical protolanguage" raises.

Tecumseh recognizes that the severest of these problems ("the greatest explanatory challenge for all musical protolanguage theories") is how sound acquired sense-how a continuously variable medium with no specific reference turned into strings of discrete chunks with individual meanings. However, he skips nimbly over the solution:

"Supporters of the more intuitive "synthetic" model of protolanguage, in which words evolved first followed by syntactic operations for combining them (e.g., Bickerton, 1990), have subjected holistic models to extensive criticisms (Bickerton, 2007; Tallerman, 2007, 2008). However, I argue that most of these critiques miss their mark if the notion of a musical protolanguage is accepted as a starting point (cf. Fitch, in press). Jespersen/Wray's model of holistic protolanguage thus dovetails nicely with the musical protolanguage hypothesis, in ways that I believe resolve many, if not all, of these criticisms (cf. Fitch, 2006; Mithen, 2005)."

As I don't have a copy of Fitch (in press), I remain in the dark as to what these ways are. All I know is that when Dean Falk made the same proposal, I wrote a commentary that, inter alia, pointed out she gave no account of how symbolic meaning — symbolic use of words or signs to refer to particular classes or individuals — emerged from originally meaningless sounds. Significantly, she responded to all the points I made… except for that one.

Maggie Tallerman and I have made some very specific and pointed criticisms of the "holistic protolanguage" model, most of which have never been satisfactorily answered by anyone, as far as I know. If Tecumseh believes he can answer them, he should show how.

He does point out that "Darwin… embraces all three of the major leading theories of word origins of his contemporaries" but he fails to point out that at least two of these are incompatible with one another. For according to Darwin, "the attachment of specific and flexible meanings to vocalizations required only that 'some unusually wise ape-like animal should have thought of imitating the growl of a beast of prey'" (and of course that some even wiser primates should have understood what was meant-a lion coming, or lions often hang around here, or one was seen here last week, or "Gee, guys, see how well I can imitate a lion!"). But of course this onomatopoeic proposal is incompatible with "musical protolanguage", since it avoids the holistic phase altogether and goes straight to the kind of compositional, already-symbolic protolanguage that Tecumseh rejects. The "lion's roar" idea needs a good bit of tweaking, but at least it's nearer the mark than a holistic protolanguage.

A major motive behind "musical protolanguage" is Strict Continuism — the belief that language grew seamlessly from animal communication. Animal calls — if translated into humanese, and that turns out to be a very dodgy business in itself — are, like holophrases, often the equivalents of whole clauses: "Mate with me"; "Stay off my territory"; "Terrestrial predator coming — get up a tree". Split these into their components and for a few glorious moments it seems that the transition problem has been solved. But in Adam's Tongue I go more deeply into the transition problem than anyone ever has before. And it's the transition problem — how any species could get from a standard animal communication system to even the crudest and most basic kind of protolanguage — that lies at the very heart of language evolution, and without which all "explanations" are mere hand-waving, smoke and mirrors.

I know that Bickerton and Fitch are both friends of my Language Evolution lecturer Maggie Tallerman, so i can't help but imaginging them bickering in the school yard! Hehehe. I proper love this field now though. I think i may have a future arguing with these guys...

Article taken from http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1148 

A Thousand Lies @ Trillians, Newcastle. 25/3/11. (REVIEW)

Having seen A Thousand Lies perform a few times, I've come to expect great things from them - and i certainly wasn't disappointed on Friday. They are a group of amazing musicians and fucking rockstars. The awesome guitar and killer bass lines are only part of the band's massive appeal. The frontman's vocals are exceptional, with such a huge range, from dark and gritty to soaring and melodic. The band work so well as a unit; they truly captivated me at their gig.

A Thousand Lies @ Venue

The singer interacted with the crowd in a way that all frontmen wish they could. He exuded confidence and talent, and filled the venue with his immense stage presence.
Their performance was so full of life and energy. The guitarists' exhilarating riffs and gigantic solos were mind blowing and the steady infectious rhythms were consistently blasted out by the drummer and bassist.

A Thousand Lies @ Venue

What makes A Thousand Lies special is that, on top of their incredible music, they like to have fun. The frontman played this gig wearing a kilt (not to insult, he may not have been trying to be funny, but i was amused by the sight of a man in a skirt...)! Their new t-shirts, for sale at the gig, carry the slogan 'sesh on' on the back, something which their guitarist exclaimed multiple times! They also took a break mid set to give out free shots to their fans! It's nice to see that a band as talented as A Thousand Lies can still have a laugh and not take themselves too seriously.

A Thousand Lies @ Venue

Their combination of heavy metal and melodic rock really works. There was a damn good turnout on Friday, and A Thousand Lies' new songs were received very well by the hooked audience. Everyone at the front was headbanging and generally having a great time. This really was live music at its best.

I'd also like to mention that Convolution and Theia put on a really good show too. I just can't remember enough to write anything of substance. Brilliant bands all round.

7 Pence Mix Up @ Trillians

The special surprise of Friday's gig was the debut performance of 7 Pence Mix Up, a band consisting of members of A Thousand Lies, Convolution and Fyreon. They performed two songs, covers of Pantera and Damageplan. What a spectacle! It was such an amazing way to end the night. It was slightly difficult to fit 7 people on the stage in Trillians, but they pulled it off, and were bloody entertaining!

7 Pence Mix Up @ Trillians

Overall it was a fantastic gig, with brilliant local bands, who keep getting better every time i see them.
See ya at the next gig!


(I was too busy recording A Thousand Lies' performance at Trillians to take photos, so I have used some from the Ex-Fest Showcase at Venue).

Reactions to Tucson – The Inevitable Political Aftermath

The tragedy in Tucson, Arizona this January led to some interesting reactions and the usual cascade of news coverage. What I find interesting is how different these reactions were. Fellow Blogger Conform, Consume, Obey first got me thinking of this issue when he blogged two very contrasting videos from Obama and Palin.

Gabrielle Giffords

I had a look at the Guardian’s website and saw lots of articles covering the event. However, I immediately noticed a huge difference when I deigned to look at the Daily Mail. There are 2 articles on the fact that Gabrielle Giffords was Gwyneth Paltrow’s second cousin... (a point that the Guardian wisely didn’t consider relevant enough to write an article about) I mean seriously, overlooking the main issue just a bit! Just glancing at the headlines you can see the drama the Mail writers thrive on:

Police find photos of Arizona gunman, bizarrely posing with his firearm while wearing a red G-string, which were developed the morning of massacre
Gunman linked to white extremists: Loner charged after shooting top politician in the head and killing six

Compared with the more sober and respectful headlines of the Guardian:

Jared Loughner pleads not guilty to Arizona shootings
Gabrielle Giffords speaks one month after Arizona shooting.

Jared Loughner

With a story like this, the media always attempt to explain the horrific act by stereotyping the killer – deciding that he was obviously disturbed because he listens to rock music etc. The Pursuit of HappYness considers politics to be the most important factor in this tragedy, saying:

“It cannot really be disputed that [Loughner] was influenced in some way by Palin's ridiculous and hate inducing political campaign against the Democrats” 

and I too can see that the constant propaganda and hate is likely to affect people who aren’t all there to begin with, whereas Muncie Politics thinks that people have no right to blame the Republicans or politics in general,

“To place the blame on strong political debate is not only wrong, implying the possibility your words will somehow be connected to a mentally ill murderer is absurd. If you are conservative, Republican or in some way connected to the Tea Party you are to blame”. 

A certain degree of this speculation is to be expected, but surely it’s not the most important part of this story? Surely the miracle of Gabrielle Giffords clinging to life after being shot in the head is what the press should be focused on?

As usual though, it seems that political issues took centre stage, as people hit out at Palin over insensitive comments and her inappropriate use of the anti-semetic phrase ‘blood libel’, to quote her speech:

"Within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn”,

Sarah Palin

Damian Thompson says in the Telegraph (another respectable news paper) that Sarah Palin's use of the term "blood libel" raises two possibilities:

"1. She's so ignorant that she doesn't know that 'blood libel' refers to the myth that Jews drink the blood of sacrificed children.
2. She does know what it means, and blurted it out anyway."

On the other hand, some people weren’t upset by Palin’s use of the term, and supported her in saying that ‘blood libel’ has far wider usage these days.

"There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term”, 

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz said in her defence.

Barack Obama

Meanwhile, Obama focused on offering comfort to the victims families and praying for the recovery of Giffords.

"Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy and to remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bond together."

The BBC described his inspiring speech as ‘a call to moral arms’, and a speech ‘shot through with compassion and introspection’. His strength and humility brought tears to many in the audience. The difference in these reactions was quite apparent, even prompting an article from the Guardian: Arizona shooting: Obama speech and Palin's statement compared, and became a subject of an earlier blog of mine: Reactions to Tucson - Democrat Vs. Republican.
Jim Geraghty asks for some perspective in National Review:

"In the grand scheme of things, the idea that Palin used a phrase associated with one particular, egregious and historically recurring false accusation to rebut a modern false accusation seems like little reason for outrage. For perspective on what really is worth outrage, the services for 9-year-old victim Christina Taylor Green are tomorrow."

This being the point I really agree with.

What’s worse than Palin displaying her stupidity with a fairly offensive choice of phrase, in my opinion, is that this has become more important than the victims loss of lives. The disgusting thing about her speech is how quickly she brings it round to ‘me me me’ and POLITICS! I think Obama has the complete right attitude and reaction in this awful situation. As tempting as it is to stay on the fence with an issue like this, I think I have to side with The Pursuit of HappYness and most of the mass media in assigning some blame to Palin and her party. It seems that American politics has a way of driving people to the extreme, and it’s unsurprising when you consider the sheer amount of hate mongering that goes on.