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

[Olowkow]

....I'm just not sure how far back we can extend this. A lot of human behavior leaves nothing in the fossil record, sadly.

So true. I'm thinking they found a very old fossil of a "hyoid bone". This pretty much is the "smoking gun" of speech, as I understand it. I don't have time now to dig for it.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Origins of Language II

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.

Along these lines, see the book The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals by Charles Darwin. The book was originally published in 1872. My copy is from the 1890 publication through D. Appleton & Co., printed in 1897. There are 88 hits for the book on Amazon.com.

 

[macdoc]

If you take written language as an analogous situation there is a blur early on between pictorial and more modern languages. ( still is to a degree in some Asian languages )

The spoken or signed aspect must be even greater levels of grey scale - if one were to consider language coded communication that remains consistent over generations but also is open to drift so that diverse groups show that drift.....then whale songs meet that criteria.

I think one has to take "over time" and "generational transmission" as key aspects.

 

[EHocking]

Likely first there was the upright gait which...

leaves the hands free for gesticulation...therefore, human speech originated in Italy.

 

[Olowkow]

The hyoid bone evidence is more controversial than I had remembered.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Neandertal+neck+bone+sparks+cross+talk-a013805017

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Neandertal+neck+bone+sparks+cross+talk-a013805017
A small, U-shaped neck bone found in 1988 among the remains of a 60,000-year-old Neandertal skeleton in Israel continues to generate heated debate over the extent to which Neandertals could talk. Two opposing views of the tiny fossil's linguistic implications emerged at the annual meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists The American Association of Physical Anthropologists (AAPA) is an American-based international scientific society of physical anthropologists.

 

[drkitten]

The hyoid bone evidence is more controversial than I had remembered.

That makes sense to me. I think it's overstating it to say that the hyoid bone is "the smoking gun of speech", for the "what use is half an eye" reason.

When linguists use the word "speech," they're usually talking about a fairly complicated cognitive system as well as sound manipulation system; as has been pointed out already, you can have language without speech as any ASL speaker knows. As has not been pointed out, babies -- even babies with normal hearing, with parents who don't sign -- will normally pass through a period of "babbling" in sign. And of course this has nothing to do with the hyoid bone unless you're waving your neck around....

So I could make a case that "language" may have originated as a gestural system and the hyoid bone adapted itself to allow verbal speech.

Alternatively, I could make the case that the hyoid bone adapted itself to allow more complex sounds but that "speech" came later, pointing out that bird song and whale song are both very complex, but that they're not "speech."

 

[NewtonTrino]

I can easily see how the language meme (yes language is a meme) could co-evolve and even effect the evolution of the genes needed for speaking and thought.

 

[Dinwar]

I agree that no bone is really going to net us the answer to when language started. My reasoning is slightly different--I'd like to keep the term away from "human speach", allowing for the possability of animal speach (whether or not it happens is another issue entirely; we have to allow for the possability if we're going to look at when it arose) and nonverbal forms of language (ASL, for example).

That's why I focused on artifacts--they're somewhat less ambiguous evidence for symbolic communication, which is (as I understand it) our current definition of "language". It's still ambiguous--we don't know that those creatures actually verbalized anything--but it's REALLY good evidence.

I'm not trying to downplay the hyoid bone at all--it's an important piece to a complex puzzle. I'mjust not sure how useful it is in discussing language as such.

 

[Vortigern99]

Fascinating discussion! I have nothing to add, but I do have a nitpicky correction to make.

The word "hominid" is no longer used to refer exclusively to genus Homo and its several species and subspecies. I've seen JoetheJuggler use the word that way, and others follow him on that usage.

"Hominid" now means "the Family including the great apes (chimps, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans) and humans." If you want to refer only to genus Homo and its various species, the preferred nomenclature is now "hominin".

Otherwise, carry on! [Insert nerd icon adjusting glasses here.]

SuperFAMILY: Hominoidea (all apes and humans)
FAMILY: Hominidae (great apes and humans)
SubFAMILY: Ponginae (orangutans)
GENUS: Pongo (orangs)
SubFAMILY: Homininae (gorillas, chimpanzees and humans)
TRIBE: Gorillini (gorillas)
GENUS: Gorilla (gorilla)
TRIBE: Hominini (chimps and humans)
GENUS: Pan (chimps)
GENUS: Homo (humans)

 

[drkitten]

I agree that no bone is really going to net us the answer to when language started. My reasoning is slightly different--I'd like to keep the term away from "human speach", allowing for the possability of animal speach (whether or not it happens is another issue entirely; we have to allow for the possability if we're going to look at when it arose).

The problem with this is that it's like discussing what the best type of pen to keep horses and unicorns in.

"Speech" -- or more generally, "language" -- has a lot of extremely complicated properties that are accepted more or less as part of the definition. E.g. if it's not extensible (if you can't create new symbols for new things), it's not "language." If it doesn't have recursive productions, it's not "language." If it doesn't allow representation of absent objects, it's not "language." If it doesn't have both nouns and verbs, it's not "language."

We can get away with this because every example of "language" we see includes all of these properties, without exception. And another such property is that the speaker is a human (or human-programmed, as in a computer).

So you're really suggesting that some of these properties are not properties of "language" but only of the human subset of "language." Which I suppose is possible in theory, but we have no principled way of determining which. Perhaps even more strongly, we have no non-arbitrary way of determining which. We don't even know whether recursive syntax came before extensibility, for example. How can we decide which is a more fundamental property?

 

[Dinwar]

The problem with this is that it's like discussing what the best type of pen to keep horses and unicorns in.

Not quite. More like trying to build a pen that can keep all species of Equus in. The issue is that an ancient language may not, in fact, be a language of Homo sapiens, and if we don't allow for that possability we are artificially limiting where we can search for the answer to our question. Or, to put it another way: To ask "When did human language evolve?" begs the question, in that it assumes that humans (Homo sapies) were the first to evolve language.

How can we decide which is a more fundamental property?

Find some other organism that uses language. The issue that I'm raising, however, is that by many of our present definitions we would be unable to recognize anything else as a language.

 

[iknownothing]

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.

And we use all that nonverbal communication to try to modify, explain, & interpret verbal language. Which, of course, is why it is so hard to communicate clearly in a format like this. It can be very hard to effectively communicate with language alone, and it takes years of training to do it well.

 

[drkitten]

Not quite. More like trying to build a pen that can keep all species of Equus in.

Not at all. We at least know of the existence of other species of Equus; we know about the differences between horses, donkeys, and zebras. There are also a lot of extinct species we know about (e.g. Equus altidens). This allows us to talk meaningfully about non-horse Equus, and about the taxonomic characteristics of Equus ferus.

The issue is that an ancient language may not, in fact, be a language of Homo sapiens, and if we don't allow for that possability we are artificially limiting where we can search for the answer to our question. Or, to put it another way: To ask "When did human language evolve?" begs the question, in that it assumes that humans (Homo sapies) were the first to evolve language.

No, it doesn't.

Find some other organism that uses language.

Right. I'll get right on that.

The issue that I'm raising, however, is that by many of our present definitions we would be unable to recognize anything else as a language.

You're assuming that "language" is something we "recognize."

It's not. It's a label we apply to certain forms of communication.

 

[Olowkow]

A few more rambling thoughts:
Just the notion of "word" is difficult enough to settle among those who attempt to make some sense of the rules of syntax in a generative framework. I just cringe when I use the word "rule", since someone inevitably will misunderstand this usage.

Can, for example, an element of onomatopoeia be considered to be a "word"? How can we distinguish between the word "woosh" and the sound [sshhhhh]? Is the latter a "word"?
One test is, can we affix tense? That is, can we say "wooshed"? Can we say [sshhhh+ed]? For me, the former is well formed, while the latter is not acceptable.

This is just a trivial example of the many such subtleties that need to be addressed when describing natural language. Then the question becomes, "how do we know all this stuff?" Neither my parents nor my teachers ever taught me that rule. Somehow, and I have no idea how this works, we all deduce this information from what data we have as input from the speakers we listen to. I don't think it works to say, "it sounds wrong because no one says it", or any of the other superficial reasons that one often hears. It's more like, it sounds wrong because of some logical thread that we assume and internalize as a rule from hearing others speaking well formed sentences.

 

[Dinwar]

Right. I'll get right on that.

It was meant to be a bit more lighthearted than you apparently took the statement. While it is a perfectly valid answer, it was a joke, nothing more.

No, it doesn't.

Could you explain this more, please? Specifically, if humans inhereted language from our ancestors (as is likely, given that several non-Homo sapien species used symbolic communication), how could we make that determination? A relatively useful definition has been proposed--the use of symbols in communication. This provides a very clear test, one which is not limited to humans. If you don't like it, what test can you provide that deals with language as such, and not just human language?

You're assuming that "language" is something we "recognize."

It's not. It's a label we apply to certain forms of communication.

Re-read your statement. In order to apply a label to something we need to differentiate between that thing and everything else--we need to recognize it. I'm fully aware of the complexities inherent in such a task (I've studied taxonomy), but boiled down that's all labeling is: the art of recognizing that X is different from Y. Unless we can clearly state what traits language has that differentiates language from communciation (or at least, from other forms of communication) the question in the OP is unanswerable, I'd even say nonsensical. Before we can discuss when a trait evolved we need to know what that trait is.

 

[drkitten]

Could you explain this more, please?

If humans inherited language from their ancestors, then "human language" evolved when "humans" did.

If humans did not inherit language from their ancestor, then "human language" evolved when "language" did.

The question "when did human language evolve" is neutral with respect to those alternatives and makes no assumptions.

Specifically, if humans inhereted language from our ancestors (as is likely, given that several non-Homo sapien species used symbolic communication), how could we make that determination?

We couldn't.

A relatively useful definition has been proposed--the use of symbols in communication. This provides a very clear test, one which is not limited to humans.

But it's a completely inadequate test; bees, for example, use dance-symbols for communication, but those symbols aren't "language." (They're not syntactically structured, for example.)

If you don't like it, what test can you provide that deals with language as such, and not just human language?

None. But the absence of a better alternative doesn't mean we should accept a bad one. If we have no test, we need to wait until we have other data to allow us to devise an acceptable test, rather than ignoring most of what we already know about language.

Defining "language" as "any communication involving symbols" would be a step back to the late 19th century.

In order to apply a label to something we need to differentiate between that thing and everything else--we need to recognize it.

Wrong. We don't need to recognize it. We need to define what the key differences are between that thing and everything else.

I'm fully aware of the complexities inherent in such a task (I've studied taxonomy), but boiled down that's all labeling is: the art of recognizing that X is different from Y.

No, that's not what labelling is. Unless X and Y are the same thing, of course they're different. Everything is different from everything else -- the question is whether it's different in a way that matters, and the determination of what matters is made by us, not found in nature.

Unless we can clearly state what traits language has that differentiates language from communciation (or at least, from other forms of communication) the question in the OP is unanswerable,

Right. So if it's unanswerable, don't answer it. Don't make up a new question and pretend that the answer to the second question relates to the first.

I've given you a partial list of the traits that language have that differentiate it from "mere" communication. You like the idea that the primary trait that distinguishes it is "symbolic." I like recursive syntax, myself. A noted functional linguist at my old school used to stress extensibility. There's no reason why either of us should use your definition.

And, in fact, since your definition is one of the few that's provably inadequate (since it allows things that aren't "language" by convention to sneak in), there's quite a bit of reason not to use that one. Dr. F. and I could have long arguments about the merits of our two definitions, but until we can find a recursive language that's not extensible, or an extensible language that's not recursive, we're never going to settle it.

... and a better approach, then, would be either to prove from first principles that all recursive languages must be extensible, or else to look somewhere (perhaps in creolization?) for a language with some but not all of the traits.

 

[Dinwar]

If humans inherited language from their ancestors, then "human language" evolved when "humans" did.

If humans did not inherit language from their ancestor, then "human language" evolved when "language" did.

The question "when did human language evolve" is neutral with respect to those alternatives and makes no assumptions.

Okay, I misspoke. The answer to "when did human language evolve?" is trivial--when humans did. The larger question, "When did language evolve?", is still up in the air. And knowning when human language evolved does nothing to help with that.

We couldn't.

Why not? Evidence has already been presented arguing for the evolution of language in non-Homo sapien species.

But it's a completely inadequate test; bees, for example, use dance-symbols for communication, but those symbols aren't "language." (They're not syntactically structured, for example.)

My statement was meant more as a reminder that a definition has already been presented, not to list the definition. And yeah, it's inadequate. So is Newtonian physics and classical taxonomy. It's a useful starting point, however, which is more than one can say about any other definition given here.

None. But the absence of a better alternative doesn't mean we should accept a bad one. If we have no test, we need to wait until we have other data to allow us to devise an acceptable test, rather than ignoring most of what we already know about language.

I'm fine with this, so long as 1) someone can show why the actual definition proposed is inadequate, and 2) they can show precise data we need to look for (otherwise it's just hand-waving).

Wrong. We don't need to recognize it. We need to define what the key differences are between that thing and everything else.

And the difference is.........? Perhaps it's a semantics issue, and my language is imprecise; to me, if one can differentiate between X and non-X, one can recognize X.

It's like when my minerology prof. held up a clear mineral and asked how we can see it. The answer is that we saw the edge--which lead to the discussion of refraction, index of refraction, etc. My point is, the way one recognizes X is to know the key differences between X and non-X (X can be a set as well as an item, so the non-key differences are obviously unimportant).

No, that's not what labelling is. Unless X and Y are the same thing, of course they're different. Everything is different from everything else -- the question is whether it's different in a way that matters, and the determination of what matters is made by us, not found in nature.

No. The determination of what matters is necessarily NOT made by us. We just recognize the differences that are there. While I'm not a fan of classical taxonomy, it IS a science, not mere mystical mumbo-jumbo. For the purposes of art, or casual discussion, or things like that the precise nature of the differences may be irrelevant, but in a discussion of evolution they are THE relevant facts of the discussion. If the determination of what matters is made by us, taxonomy (which is the topic of discussion here, all be it the taxonomy of communication) simply doesn't exist as a science. There'd be no replicability, for one thing.

Right. So if it's unanswerable, don't answer it.

I'm not convinced it's unanswerable. I think that linguists are artificially making it so.

And, in fact, since your definition is one of the few that's provably inadequate (since it allows things that aren't "language" by convention to sneak in), there's quite a bit of reason not to use that one.

I'm not a linguist. If you have a better definition, I'll go with it. I liked symbolism because it's easy to determine in the rock record, not because of anything having to do with language itself (it's the same reason paleontologists use the morphospecies concept--we KNOW it's wrong, but it's so darned useful that we can't get away from it). As we've both said, the question of when human language arose is a dead question, just starting from basic principles--it necessarily arose with humans (or slightly after). In terms of "When did LANGUAGE ITSELF arise?", defining language in terms of the use of symbols is very useful.

But okay, let's toss it out. You're right, it's inadequate. How would you go about looking for extensibility and recursive sintax in the rock record (really the only evidence for the past we have, other than things relying on language)? I'm not being sarcastic here in the least--to look for where language as such arose we need to look in the past, in the rock; and it'd be useful to have some idea of what to look for.

I'm thinking (as I did before) that art is a good place to look. It's circumstantial, but it will show whether or not the creatures prior to humanity were capable of the concepts. If not, obviously they were incapable of language, even if they were capable of what we'd call art. If so, we can start to build a case for the evolution of language in that time period, and in that species.

I'm prepared to admit it's an impossible task, but I'd rather actually prove it than abandon it without the attempt. Particularly because it's the whole point of this thread.

 

[drkitten]

Okay, I misspoke. The answer to "when did human language evolve?" is trivial--when humans did.

We don't know that. Language could be a later adaptation common to some humans but not others.

My statement was meant more as a reminder that a definition has already been presented, not to list the definition. And yeah, it's inadequate. So is Newtonian physics and classical taxonomy. It's a useful starting point, however, which is more than one can say about any other definition given here.

Actually, I gave you the standard definition of language; it's a laundry list of properties that effectively make it coextensive with "human language." Which means that until someone can show that those properties are separable from the property of being human, language is, ostensively, restricted to humans only and "non-human language" is an oxymoron.

But that's an empirical finding, not a definitional one. Show me something else that has all the properties of language, but is not human-produced, and linguists will accept that non-humans can use language. Show me something that has some, but not all the properties of language, and linguists will sort out what the actual 'key' properties are.

And the difference is.........?

The difference between spotting differences and labelling them as important?

Perhaps it's a semantics issue, and my language is imprecise; to me, if one can differentiate between X and non-X, one can recognize X.

Not if you made up the difference between X and non-X as you went along.

My point is, the way one recognizes X is to know the key differences between X and non-X (X can be a set as well as an item, so the non-key differences are obviously unimportant).

Got that exactly backwards. You define the set of differences that you consider to be key and that defines X and not-X.

No. The determination of what matters is necessarily NOT made by us.

Absolutely and trivially false.

If I show you four rocks and ask you which "go together," you can group in any number of ways. Those two are big, those two are grey, those two are smooth, and those two are made of quartz. Your geology professor is probably more interested in the fact that two of the rocks are quartz, because that's more interesting (to him) and more important (to him) than the fact that two of them are the same size and just what I need to complete my stone necklace.

I'm not a linguist. If you have a better definition, I'll go with it. I liked symbolism because it's easy to determine in the rock record, not because of anything having to do with language itself (it's the same reason paleontologists use the morphospecies concept--we KNOW it's wrong, but it's so darned useful that we can't get away from it).

In other words, you're looking for the keys because the light is better here than on the corner where you lost them.

In terms of "When did LANGUAGE ITSELF arise?", defining language in terms of the use of symbols is very useful.

No, because bees use symbols but not "LANGUAGE ITSELF."

How would you go about looking for extensibility and recursive sintax in the rock record (really the only evidence for the past we have, other than things relying on language)?

I wouldn't. Not all questions need to have answers. Acknowledgement that a question has no answer is better than offering an answer you know to be both wrong and unresponsive.

Alternatively, you want an answer to when language arose, but you don't care if the answer is actually correct? "Language arose on March 8, 356 BCE, in a small village in Calabria. At about 3:30pm." Everything else is not-language, because we will for convenience define this temporal distinction as the key aspect. We can therefore easily "recognize" whether or not something is language simply by dating it.

 

[macdoc]

But that's an empirical finding, not a definitional one. Show me something else that has all the properties of language, but is not human-produced, and linguists will accept that non-humans can use language. Show me something that has some, but not all the properties of language, and linguists will sort out what the actual 'key' properties are.

This is almost a self fulfilling prophesy - you are restricting the definition to things humans do well........ when in fact there may be far more efficient languages that require far less complexity to perform the function of communication between individual peers and adults and young to achieve a certain goal.

ASL may be an interesting approach as it does not adhere directly to English but in some cases goes beyond what can be verbalized ....I'm no expert but IF you recognise ASL as a language then I would say early sign languages need to be as well and may indeed predate verbal....so where are we then ..... further back and no need for a biological speech mechanism.

Yes it's an end run but sometimes I think we hold up complexity as a "better thing" rather than a hindrance which it can be.

case in point

http://www.abbottandcostello.net/who.htm

 

[Olowkow]

...when in fact there may be far more efficient languages that require far less complexity to perform the function of communication between individual peers...

If you can come up with a metric for this measurement, let me know, and I'll share the Nobel with you. I know it is tempting to look down on some cultures or language groups because of their perceived primitiveness, but their language is not a feature that you can ever attack as "less complex".

I have never met anyone outside of the field of linguistics or related fields such as anthropology or psychology, who was aware how complex English is, let alone Kanuri or Swahili or Athabaskan, Mohawk. Let's just not go there. What do you want to compare? Swahili's 22 genders (IIRC) with German's 3, and French's 2?