TED Talk Notes

Talk #1: Murray Gell-Mann - The Ancestor of Language
https://www.ted.com/talks/murray_gell_mann_on_the_ancestor_of_language#t-16309

Topic: Distant relationships between human languages

Notes:
The theory of common ancestry,  when it comes to language, is not a widely believed theory among linguists
The talker believes that language goes beyond this theoretical 'common ancestor', before things such as cave paintings, which he believes could not have been created without modern language.

Talk #2: Erin McKean: Go Ahead, Make Up New Words
https://www.ted.com/talks/erin_mckean_go_ahead_make_up_new_words#t-397119

Topic: Creation of new words, Specifically in the English Language.

Notes:
The speaker talks about the fact that people are discouraged from creating new words, and how this is contradictory to how we are usually taught to be (meaning, creative, inventive etc). She implores the listener to embrace new words, and even take a hand in creating some.

She then goes on to talk about the different ways new words can be created:
The first, is 'borrowing' words from other languages and adopting them directly into our own. She cites the word 'ninja' from Japanese as an example for this.
Another method by which new words can be formed is by 'Compounding' Which is combining to pre-existing words to form a new word. She uses the words "Heartbroken", "Bookworm" and "Sandcastle" to demonstrate a compound.
The next way detailed in the video is called 'Functional Shift'. This is where the meaning of a word is adapted to fit a different situation/context. An example used for this is: the word 'commercial' while originally being an adjective, has become a noun in modern American English.
The final way she shares on how to create new words is 'Blending'. This, similarly to compounding, is a way of combining two words, however blending does so more vigorously. Examples of blending include: "Brunch" and "Motel"

Talk #3: Daniel H. Cohen: For Argument's Sake
https://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_h_cohen_for_argument_s_sake#t-28019

Topic: Why Do We Argue?

Notes:
The speaker explores the concept of academic argument, why we argue, and what effect losing an argument has.
He states three 'models' of academic argument
Argument as War
Argument as Proof
Argument as Performance
He says that, of the three, the dominant is 'Argument as War'. He says that it shapes how we talk and think about arguments, as well as how we conduct our own arguments.
The talker points out that when we talk about arguments, we often use militaristic terms. He states that: "We want 'strong' arguments, 'killer' arguments."

The speaker suggests that this 'adversarial' way of addressing argument is 'deforming' the way we think about argument. He says it makes us value tactics over substance, that it magnifies the 'us vs them' aspect, and that the only foreseeable outcomes are 'glorious victory', or 'abject defeat'.
He says that this way of thinking removes the concepts of Deliberation, Negotiation, Compromise and Collaboration from arguing.
He finishes by saying that arguments run through this way of thinking never really 'get anywhere'. More often than not, they end in stalemate, or backtracking or proverbial 'dead-ends'.