Chit Chat

A story in today's Scotsman (2008) asks "Why do women chat more than men?", and suggests that Greeno and Semple (2008) may have found the answer among macaque monkeys. Female macaques, according to their study, use more affiliative vocalizations than males. The article does reference Mehl's (2007) finding that debunked the idea that human women talk more than human men, but explains the discrepancy by suggesting that "modern humans are not female-bonded in the sense that this term is used to describe nonhuman primate social structure." The theoretical basis of Greeno and Semple's article owes much to the work of R. I. M. Dunbar, who theorized that language evolved as a lower-cost grooming behavior, and therefore would have manifested more strongly in females (see Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language, 1996).

---

I have to admit, when I tripped over this article, my first response was to wonder if they had just ignored Mehl's debunking of the "women talk more" theory, and I was relieved to see that it was referenced in the conclusion. However, the idea that "modern" humans are socially different than primate societies doesn't seem to make a lot of sense when you're already approaching the subject from an evolutionary psychology perspective. Maybe I'm missing something fairly profound about the use of the word "modern" in this context. The fact that journalists and scientists alike seem to cling to the "common knowledge" that women are more given to chit-chat than men puzzles me. What makes these truths truthy?

I really hope that Language Log picks this story up. I'd love to see Liberman's reaction.

---

Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.