The origin of language when, where, why, how?

[Perpetual Student]

In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution, editors Jones, Martin, and Pilbeam conceded that ‘there are no non-human languages,’ and then went on to observe that ‘language is an adaptation unique to humans, and yet the nature of its uniqueness and its biological basis are notoriously difficult to define’ [emphasis added].[3] In his book, The Symbolic Species: The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain, Terrance Deacon noted:

‘In this context, then, consider the case of human language. It is one of the most distinctive behavioral adaptations on the planet. Languages evolved in only one species, in only one way, without precedent, except in the most general sense. And the differences between languages and all other natural modes of communicating are vast.’[4]

FROM: LINK

 

[Myriad]

Human language is just strange.

Most human cognitive abilities can be clearly grouped into two categories:

1) Not duplicated in the animal kingdom, challenging for humans to learn, relatively easy (compared with category 2) to program a computer to do.

2) Duplicated and sometimes exceeded to varying degrees in the animal kingdom, easy or automatic for humans to learn in childhood, very difficult (compared with category 1) to program a computer to do.

Category 1 includes things like chess playing, rigorous logic, and mathematics. Category 2 includes things like visual perception and muscular coordination (e.g. walking).

When one considers the amount of computation required for the task, it's apparent that category 2 tasks are inherently difficult and only seem easy for humans to learn and to do because those abilities go way back on the evolutionary time scale. Category 1 tasks only seem difficult because they are recent human developments and are probably accomplished by stretching cognitive capabilities that evolved for other applications.

Language, though, breaks those categories. Humans learn language readily and effortlessly in childhood, much like they learn to run and to create mental maps of objects in 3D space by interpreting retinal images. And normal use of language is effortless. Yet capabilities comparable to human language do not exist in other animals, and it is a computationally very complex and difficult task. Are there any characteristics of human language that an alien could identify, that indicate that the species only had that capability for a few hundred or a few thousand generations? None have been found, as far as I know.

So we have this capability that looks like it's evolved for tens of millions of years, but we only seem to have had it for tens of thousands of years if not less. It's almost as though a big black monolith had come along...

I'm pretty sure that this mystery will be solved scientifically (most likely by proving the existence of a deep mapping between language processing and some other cognitive ability that goes back a lot farther) without involving gods or aliens. But at present it's a mystery.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So we have this capability that looks like it's evolved for tens of millions of years, but we only seem to have had it for tens of thousands of years if not less. It's almost as though a big black monolith had come along...

I'm pretty sure that this mystery will be solved scientifically (most likely by proving the existence of a deep mapping between language processing and some other cognitive ability that goes back a lot farther) without involving gods or aliens. But at present it's a mystery.

I don't think it's completely a mystery even now. We know that a lot of the cognitive abilities needed for language exist even in other primates still living. We know cognitive skills like pattern recognition, the ability and tendency to infer agency, object invariance, memory, and so on were all big benefits for primates living in complex societies.

We can easily deduce a smooth continuum from something like vervet alarm calls all the way up to fully-formed human language with adaptive benefits at each improvement along the way. I think it looks so surprising because we're the only hominid species left. Other great apes are as close as we get, and that still looks like a huge gulf (though it might not be as great as it seems).

 

[Perpetual Student]

I don't think it's completely a mystery even now. We know that a lot of the cognitive abilities needed for language exist even in other primates still living. We know cognitive skills like pattern recognition, the ability and tendency to infer agency, object invariance, memory, and so on were all big benefits for primates living in complex societies.

We can easily deduce a smooth continuum from something like vervet alarm calls all the way up to fully-formed human language with adaptive benefits at each improvement along the way. I think it looks so surprising because we're the only hominid species left. Other great apes are as close as we get, and that still looks like a huge gulf (though it might not be as great as it seems).

I would argue that it is greater than it seems. Animal communication is often erroneously anthropomorphized.

 

[Prometheus]

Human language is just strange.

Most human cognitive abilities can be clearly grouped into two categories:

1) Not duplicated in the animal kingdom, challenging for humans to learn, relatively easy (compared with category 2) to program a computer to do.

2) Duplicated and sometimes exceeded to varying degrees in the animal kingdom, easy or automatic for humans to learn in childhood, very difficult (compared with category 1) to program a computer to do.

... <snip>

It seems to me that most, if not all, of the abilities in category 1 are dependent upon having language in order to learn them in the first place, so perhaps what you've identified is more of a continuum (with human language somewhere in the middle) than a discrete dichotomy.

 

[Dinwar]

The huge gap between them and fully-formed human language is probably the result of the fact that other members of our closest clade are all extinct. I think we can safely assume that Neanderthals had language, and some of the other now-extinct hominids in our once bushier family tree probably had some of the missing links.

That, and the tendency to put things in boxes is notorious for creating false separations like this. Where, precisely, is the line between "language" and "communication"? Personally, I'd be very surprised if there was one--it's much more likely that it's a continuum, with humans on one end and sponges on the other (sticking with animals because it simplifies things, and I doubt sponges communicate much).

Though I must confess, I always get a bad taste in my mouth when someone claims that there's no intermediate forms. This may be entirely correct in this instance--it may be that the intermediate forms died with our cousin species--but I tend to always assume that there ARE, in any discussion of evolution, intermediates, and that either ideology or ignorance prevent us from seeing them (ignorance is not an insult; if the intermediate languages were used by our cousin species there'd be no evidence, and any rational scientist would be forced to admit ignorance on this topic; also, not trying to insult anyone here with either of these).

In fact, he finds some of these functions are present even in monkey brains (that have nothing like reading). So the conclusion is that reading and writing evolved suited to take advantage of existing brain structures/functions.

.....and people are surprised by this? It's fairly basic evolutionary biology.

I would argue that it is greater than it seems. Animal communication is often erroneously anthropomorphized.

Again, where does "communication" become "language"? Without a hard definition for both, and particularly a firm line between them, we're spinning our wheels in this discussion, it seems. Some people will use overly narrow definitions for language, which amount to "human communications" (I've seen biologists argue that), and others will use overly broad definitions, which amount to "any communication whatever".

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Again, where does "communication" become "language"? Without a hard definition for both, and particularly a firm line between them, we're spinning our wheels in this discussion, it seems. Some people will use overly narrow definitions for language, which amount to "human communications" (I've seen biologists argue that), and others will use overly broad definitions, which amount to "any communication whatever".

I think the only definition of language is the linguistic definition which is clearly human language. (Characteristics include conventional symbols [i.e. words other symbols with no natural relationship to their meaning], the ability to express any idea that can be expressed in another language, syntax that allows for infinite novel utterances, and so on.)

However, linguists also recognize two different meanings of the term "language"--one is the capacity of a brain to use a language, and the other is instances of conventional systems (e.g. English, Spanish, ASL, etc.) That is, one represents the innate capacity to learn and use the other, which is a social convention.

The broad definitions you speak of are not proper usage, IMO--except when used metaphorically.

 

[Dinwar]

My point was more philosophical than that--it was that 1) there's no single definition as of yet in this thread, and 2) that's caused by a lack of a good definition in the Real World. Unless we get a good handle on what we're talking about--ie, a good definition for "language"--we can't move forward in this discussion.

And honestly, the definitions you present, while useful in discussing human languages, fall very short in discussing the evolution of language. It assumes, a priori, that we can draw a firm line and say "This is language, this isn't". Useful 99% of the time, but in this instance it's begging the question.

 

[Bishadi]

My point was more philosophical than that--it was that 1) there's no single definition as of yet in this thread, and 2) that's caused by a lack of a good definition in the Real World. Unless we get a good handle on what we're talking about--ie, a good definition for "language"--we can't move forward in this discussion.

And honestly, the definitions you present, while useful in discussing human languages, fall very short in discussing the evolution of language. It assumes, a priori, that we can draw a firm line and say "This is language, this isn't". Useful 99% of the time, but in this instance it's begging the question.

Could language (human) be a consequence of consciousness? ie... we categorize naturally; label an identity/identifier to 'it' (concepts, things, people, etc...) In which to be capable of articulating an identity by choice a concept of language could be observed.

 

[Trakar]

...Again, where does "communication" become "language"? Without a hard definition for both, and particularly a firm line between them, we're spinning our wheels in this discussion, it seems. Some people will use overly narrow definitions for language, which amount to "human communications" (I've seen biologists argue that), and others will use overly broad definitions, which amount to "any communication whatever".

Largely agreed, here and generally throughout your statement. My concern, is that it is awfully difficult to set that line, even if we insist upon the "abstract thought" and developed sense of self as essential elements to distinguish language and communication, especially as we see more, and more of the animal kingdom displaying unexpected measures of these qualities.

Dolphin, ape, dog, even parrots and ravens

It is difficult for me to imagine "thinking" without words

 

[Perpetual Student]

That, and the tendency to put things in boxes is notorious for creating false separations like this. Where, precisely, is the line between "language" and "communication"? Personally, I'd be very surprised if there was one--it's much more likely that it's a continuum, with humans on one end and sponges on the other (sticking with animals because it simplifies things, and I doubt sponges communicate much).
...

Again, where does "communication" become "language"? Without a hard definition for both, and particularly a firm line between them, we're spinning our wheels in this discussion, it seems. Some people will use overly narrow definitions for language, which amount to "human communications" (I've seen biologists argue that), and others will use overly broad definitions, which amount to "any communication whatever".

If you are interested, Terrance Deacon makes a strong case that language is a distinct and unique phenomenon when compared to biological or simple animal communication in his book The Symbolic Species: The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain. For example, he says, "...language is not merely a mode of communication, it is also the outward expression of an unusual mode of thought -- symbolic representation...." He goes on to argue that simple communication among other species and even the examples of communicating laboratory apes do not elevate to the level of language. I found his arguments quite persuasive.

 

[Olowkow]

The "when, where, why" of language origins, a most interesting and, at the same time, frustrating question. You won't find many serious linguists who will touch the subject with a ten foot pole. I find everyone's comments very interesting here, and I really hesitate to enter the fray, since I really know nothing about origins, despite a long history in linguistics. But I have my guesses.

My experience has been that "origins" was a taboo topic much like "cold fusion" is for physicists. There are no data, and there possibly never will be.

Natural language, I still believe, has its innate components, as well as its superficial or external evidences such as production, phonetics, morphology and syntax. Language is frustratingly societal, intellectual, psychological, and physical, all at the same time. I find that very few in the academic world have a proper appreciation for the immense complexity of theoretical syntax and semantics, and few can see the beauty of phonology, let alone morphology except for those who have studied the matter extensively. This tells me that at its deepest roots, human language has to be so incredibly simple in principle as to make us blush, or no one could possibly learn to speak, but it is not an easy nut to crack. The subject really reminds of Feynman's remark about quantum physics. If you think you understand natural languages, you don't....

In order to discover "when it arose", may entail "why" it arose. I suspect language is chosen for by selection, out of necessity for activities like hunting, manipulation of fire for sure, tool making, and sexual rituals. As someone mentioned earlier, the physical mechanisms must also be in place for production of the sounds needed for speech. Perhaps there will be a hint in fossilized remains as to the presence of a proper hyoid bone, that could give some measure of proof of age. Language also was likely a preparation for bipedalism as well, shouting long distance messages while standing and/or running.

It certainly is a fun topic to theorize about.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Could language (human) be a consequence of consciousness? ie... we categorize naturally; label an identity/identifier to 'it' (concepts, things, people, etc...) In which to be capable of articulating an identity by choice a concept of language could be observed.

Yes, there are researchers who have taken this approach. See LINK and LINK

 

[macdoc]

I would argue that it is greater than it seems. Animal communication is often erroneously anthropomorphized.

I concur - clearly in elephants for one there is communication and not at all as we know it.....it took a breakthrough to understand elephants regularly communicate over km.
http://www.suite101.com/content/elephant-communication-a114288

Whales have dialectics
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/25

Good stuff here
http://www.babelsdawn.com/babels_dawn/2009/09/protolanguage_builds_on_mimicry.html

and here
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Thinking-Like-a-Chimpanzee.html

Too much hubris on our part.
Too narrow a definition of language in my view.

Written - now that's a different tale.

 

[macdoc]

As someone mentioned earlier, the physical mechanisms must also be in place for production of the sounds needed for speech.

Yet parrots can speak perfectly - crazy - and in many cases clearly appear to understand as well.

http://www.eparrots.biz/talk.html

In other words it's not pure mimicry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_(parrot)

Chimps as well with sign language are evoking complex thought.

Also in the early 1970's, a chimpanzee named Washoe was taught to communicate in American Sign Language (ASL) by Beatrix and Allen Gardner at the University of Nevada in Reno. She was immersed in an environment where she learned to use ASL in daily interactions with her human companions. Washoe learned 132 different words in her time with the Gardners. In time since, four other chimps have also been taught to sign and they, along with Washoe, are the subject of study by Roger and Deborah Fouts. These five chimps, who consider themselves a family, now use many more signs than they were ever expected to learn (Washoe herself can use up to 240 reliable signs) ,and sign not only to the humans, but also to each other to communicate. Washoe even taught her own adopted son to sign without human intervention (Fouts).

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/cultural/language/chimpanzee.html

Khio-San and related tribes may be our last link to very early language.
If you look at the combination of gesture, body language and sound.....I think we need to broaden the term...you gotta know the communication was critical to hunter gather society - particularly coordinated hunting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA4aV-tTLpQ

then there is this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idioglossia

 

[Olowkow]

..
Good stuff here
http://www.babelsdawn.com/babels_dawn/2009/09/protolanguage_builds_on_mimicry.html

...

Interesting article until I got to the end:

Apes do not go through this process and thus, even when they are taught protolanguage, are not able to use protolanguage creatively, or find new uses for it, or think with it, or tell any kind of story with it.

I was about the look for the Washoe stuff, when I saw you posted it already.

 

[Delvo]

If you are interested, Terrance Deacon makes a strong case that language is a distinct and unique phenomenon when compared to biological or simple animal communication in his book The Symbolic Species: The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain. For example, he says, "...language is not merely a mode of communication, it is also the outward expression of an unusual mode of thought -- symbolic representation...." He goes on to argue that simple communication among other species and even the examples of communicating laboratory apes do not elevate to the level of language. I found his arguments quite persuasive.

Until this post, I wondering, while reading this thread, how/why so many people seemed to think that other animals' communications were analogous to language at all.

They're actually analogous to something else we still have; language doesn't serve the same purposes as it and didn't replace it. We still laugh, cry, scream, moan, sigh, and such. Those sounds, like facial expressions and some cases of "body language", are universal to the whole species regardless of what language is spoken, arise in children before any particular sign of even beginning to learn language, and are also found in other species whose last common ancestor with us was millions of years ago, maybe dozens of millions. Each sound has only one meaning everywhere, being impossible to assign any other meanings to, and the meaning is always essentially a statement of the utterer's mood or feelings. And they're automatic/subconscious/involuntary, sometimes even coming out when we're trying not to let them out.

That's all just like the communicative sounds that animals make. But it's completely different from language in every way. Words consist of sounds that aren't like any of those utterances, which frees them from unnecessary connections to emotions. They can be assigned any meaning and are assigned a wide variety of meanings which keep changing and often contradict each other. Each one's meaning is, in by far most cases ("interjections" being the exception), only a fraction of a complete idea, which means that most of the time, complete ideas can only be expressed by combining multiple words. Making the sounds and organizing them in the right order is a skill that takes time to learn. And together, they can express a wide (in some ways essentially unlimited) range of meanings other than just the speaker's feelings at the moment. And using them requires conscious, deliberate decisions about what to say and how to say it.

 

[Olowkow]

We just have to decide whether we are discussing "human language" or some broad topic which encompasses animal communication. I prefer to think of these as codes, and even within natural or human language, there is room to think in terms of code switching.

I would say that for purposes of discussion, one must posit a fully functioning taxonomic grammar which contains the elements of universals of language, positional syntactic functions and morphology at the word level (not always needed), but at the least, the clear categories of nouns and verbs. The rest can be derived from these two categories. Tense, case and number may or may not be assigned at the morphological level. Recursivity is claimed by many, Chomsky included, to be a must...I'm not so sure. Ability to create new words is very likely a requirement. Intonation--not "tones"-- as an element of meaning is likely a universal (question intonation, etc), and notions such as a limit in the levels of self embedding in recursive structures and certain constraints such as the "complex noun phrase constraint", and limits on moving a questioned element out of a conjoined structure, just to name a few, may very well be universals.

I think the search for linguistic universals is a useful quest...it always has been. Such information will probably shed light on the "how" in pondering the origins of human language.

ETA: I forgot to mention a productive set of phonological rules (read "principles") if it is a spoken language, or some principles of combinatorial effects on morphemes if it is a visual (signed) language.

 

[macdoc]

That's all just like the communicative sounds that animals make. But it's completely different from language in every way. Words consist of sounds that aren't like any of those utterances, which frees them from unnecessary connections to emotions. They can be assigned any meaning and are assigned a wide variety of meanings which keep changing and often contradict each other. Each one's meaning is, in by far most cases ("interjections" being the exception), only a fraction of a complete idea, which means that most of the time, complete ideas can only be expressed by combining multiple words. Making the sounds and organizing them in the right order is a skill that takes time to learn. And together, they can express a wide (in some ways essentially unlimited) range of meanings other than just the speaker's feelings at the moment. And using them requires conscious, deliberate decisions about what to say and how to say it.

you'd get quite the eyeful from ASL practioners on your limiting.
something akin to this

hubris, HUBRIS I SAY!!!!
•••

and when you thought that crow was laughing at a silly human who is ground bound....

likely so

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZshCsNNjvQ

I suspect they have a very rich spectrum of communication including flight patterns.

 

[Dinwar]

"...language is not merely a mode of communication, it is also the outward expression of an unusual mode of thought -- symbolic representation...."

Okay. I can buy that. Even if "language" is gradational this provides a nice, clean dividing line.

Now the question becomes, how does one detect this? Obviously symbolic representation is present when you start burying your dead with flowers, food, fake weapons, jewelry, etc.--which several other hominids did. I'm just not sure how far back we can extend this. A lot of human behavior leaves nothing in the fossil record, sadly.