How did language originate?

[Miranda]

I do get a sense from your words here and earlier that there is some implication that tool use or some other behavior or environmental circumstance "causes" evolutionary change/advance. This is contrary to my understanding of natural selection inasmuch as genetic mutations arise all the time in reproduction and only through happenstance carry on to have some advantage, or at least no disadvantage.

Thanks for pointing this out. I think this is a mishap that happens a lot when talking about evolution in general. I didn't mean to come off as Lamarck-ian, or even Spencer-ian in regards to the environment 'causing' evolutionary adaptations. :doh:

The environment just puts pressure on a species with a given mutation, and if the mutation proves useful, then those with the mutation will procreate. Applying this to the tool-usage example: it seems that we can apply tool-usage to most primates; something caused the brain to become more functional in this way (a mutation, perhaps) and given localization and plasticity, this brain change may not have only influenced tool usage, but linguistic functionality as well. The environment doesn't cause evolutionary changes, but as you said, 'selects' traits as needed.

[Boerseun]

As to the thread title, I read a study once that concluded that vocal communication evolved from gestural communication, and both are seated in the same part of the human brain.

 

When hunting in packs, for instance, it's imperative to know where your partners are (grunts, other noises) and to know their intentions (body language, etc.).

 

David Attenborough devoted a complete chapter in his book "Life on Earth" to how he was lucky enough to be present in a group of scientists making contact with a tribe in Papua New Guinea who've never had any outside contact. Their language was completely alien. Any attempts at vocal communication quickly came to naught. But trade soon ensued, where the bartering was done by facial expressions like smiles, frowns, nodding, etc. A very rudimentary form of communication was established using these facial expressions, where the understanding of what certain facial muscle arrangements mean, seem to be universal, and entirely instinctive.

 

Humans are the animals with the most facial muscles in the animal kingdom. And its no accident that we've chosen dogs to be our "best friends", because they are second in the number of facial muscles. We can clearly communicate with dogs, on the same level as we communicated amongst ourselves before the invention of speech. They frown, they smile, and all for the same reasons that humans do. It's a perfect match - and the ability to do so must have been reinforced by their human masters via artificial selection over the millenia.

 

But be that as it may, have you ever made a phone call, talking to someone thousands of miles away, completely invisible to them, and found yourself gesturing whilst talking?

It seems so natural, and it actually aids you in forming your sentences, feeling more "natural" than to merely talk into the handset. It is also much easier to misread someone's intentions when you're blind to their body language.

[sman]

It’s important to note that we’re not talking about the origin of speech, or vocal communication, or even of gesticular communication, for that matter. It may be time to carve out some of the things that make language unique from other forms of symbolic communication.

 

A dog’s posture and facial expression can convey meaning and can be thought of as a symbol for that meaning. The symbols can be completely arbitrary. Cocking the head slightly and presenting the puppy-dog eyes, for instance, may not be universal for “feed me”, and is most likely a dynamic that develops between an individual dog and owner. This dog and this owner may have a repertoire of gesticular symbols with meanings that the two agree upon. The same gestures may have different meanings in different contexts. Dogs are extremely intelligent animals and are champion symbol manipulators among the animal world. But none of this even approaches the subject of this thread, language.

 

Language is a combinatorial system which, from a finite set of these symbols, produces a potentially infinite set of ideas. It combines the symbols using specific cognitive tricks that are unique to our minds. Simple recursion is one: I’m hungry, I’m very hungry, I’m very, very hungry…. The embedded relative clause is another: I’m hungry, because I haven’t eaten since breakfast, because I’ve been so busy, because…. Also, the evolution of languages, all languages, have taken some of these symbols and completely bleached them of all meaning accept as grammatical elements that can only color the meaning of other symbols. These little bits of left-over morphology are sometimes not even pronounceable (or gestureable) on their own, like the English suffixes -s, and -n’t, or the Greek interrogative marker (indicated by pitch) or the semitic consonantal verbal root (s-l-m > Islam, muslim, salime…etc), or the Sumerian verbal infix - -. (In Sumerian, the absence of an infix, where one normally is, conveys specific meaning, in this case, the direct object of the verb as “it”.)

 

English, Abenaki, Inuit, Akkadian, !San, American Sign Language, and any one of the 800 some languages of highland New Guinea that Attenborogh must have encountered, all exhibit the same level of subtlety and exquisite complexity as all the rest. There are absolutely no intermediates. To say that vocal communication evolved from gesticular communication is like saying that English evolved from Frisian West-Germanic, or French from vernacular Latin. In fact, it is probably true, but this does not address how the combinatorial engine of these communication systems evolved.

[Miranda]

David Attenborough devoted a complete chapter in his book "Life on Earth" to how he was lucky enough to be present in a group of scientists making contact with a tribe in Papua New Guinea who've never had any outside contact. Their language was completely alien. Any attempts at vocal communication quickly came to naught. But trade soon ensued, where the bartering was done by facial expressions like smiles, frowns, nodding, etc. A very rudimentary form of communication was established using these facial expressions, where the understanding of what certain facial muscle arrangements mean, seem to be universal, and entirely instinctive.

This is much like what was mentioned earlier in this thread about pidgin languages...essentially forming language from scratch. Bickerton addresses this in his book Adam's Tongue, and so far it sounds pretty convincing.

 

I have also heard of the idea that proposes sign language as the possible precurser to language. In a way, it coincides well with the reaserch being done in embodied cognition. The only possible problem with the idea of signing is that it is less conducive at night, when vision is minimal, but this is a minor problem that doesn't necessarily rule out the idea. It is likely that this isn't a matter of whether vocal or visual communication came first, because language probably developed by an amalgam of the two.

[Turtle]

...

I have also heard of the idea that proposes sign language as the possible precurser to language. In a way, it coincides well with the reaserch being done in embodied cognition. The only possible problem with the idea of signing is that it is less conducive at night, when vision is minimal, but this is a minor problem that doesn't necessarily rule out the idea. It is likely that this isn't a matter of whether vocal or visual communication came first, because language probably developed by an amalgam of the two.

 

Thinking from a dark perpesctive, I was reminded by your post of communication by touch. :hyper: :lol:

[Boerseun]

To say that vocal communication evolved from gesticular communication is like saying that English evolved from Frisian West-Germanic, or French from vernacular Latin. In fact, it is probably true, but this does not address how the combinatorial engine of these communication systems evolved.

Thank you for your elaborate reply.

 

The point I was making, merely illustrated the importance of gestures in communication.

 

It can be hypothesized that verbal language originated when a series of grunts replaced gesturing, for instance, when hunting, you should know who and where your partners are, and what their intentions are. Now, if you had to look at each of your team members every time, you have to take your eyes off the prize. It might be that humans with a propensity for grunting as an aid to gesturing had better luck in hunting, and serves as a model for how the verbal side of communication sprung from the physical.

 

But it seems abundantly clear from research done on patients suffering from brain damage in various forms and degrees, that the brain center controlling gesturing also controls speech.

[SugarMoses]

I find all of this very interesting. I'm currently in China studying Chinese and recently I've found myself wondering how in the world did or letters end up shaped the way they are, as opposed to Chinese characters, most of which are pictographs, and other writing systems. The answer to this question is bet served in another thread probably... so I guess I don't have much of a point except to say....... interesting. Keep up the good talk

[Turtle]

I find all of this very interesting. I'm currently in China studying Chinese and recently I've found myself wondering how in the world did or letters end up shaped the way they are, as opposed to Chinese characters, most of which are pictographs, and other writing systems. The answer to this question is bet served in another thread probably... so I guess I don't have much of a point except to say....... interesting. Keep up the good talk

 

There is a special on the PBS NOVA series about the young guy who just recently deciphered the Mayan writing and found that it is phoentic. He went with his Dad there as a little kid while his Dad studied the writings on stella, and took up the interest himself as a young adult. Mayan writing has a lot of different characters on the face of it (Mayan writing joke. :hyper:), but it turns out many are merely variations of a core symbol set. :hyper:

 

Not sure how your access is over there, but here is a link to the program. >> NOVA | Cracking the Maya Code | PBS

[sman]

I keep saying that language is in a class by itself, and has no precursors.

There are absolutely no intermediates.

 

This really creates an ill-posed problem though. We are so used to explaining complex things by the accumulation of small incermental steps. To say that something just appeared one day, as an event instead of a continuum, to me sounds like crying irreducible complexity. But I think I may have an analogue, and I expect to be told I'm way off base, but here it is.

 

The formation of the eukaryotic cell from very different lineages of bacteria. Apparently, bacteria thrived and diversified on earth for a while(one billion years), until some forms started to behave as simbionts on one another, simply due to proximity and the idiosyncratic chemical things that each had evolved to do. So, one form exhausted/excreated the chemicals that another needed for fuel/food. At this point, they could have been selected for optimal concordance with the simbiotic colony, but that's just natural selection - gradually becoming adaped to a new environment by slow, incremental changes. The formation of this beneficial collaboration of highly different organisms was, in comparison, an event.

 

Is this at all helpful in our attempts to explain the origin of language? It is a beneficial outcome brought on by the collaboration of many different features, all already grown by natural selection for a completely different benefit.

[Turtle]

...selected for optimal concordance with the simbiotic colony, but that's just natural selection - gradually becoming adaped to a new environment by slow, incremental changes. The formation of this beneficial collaboration of highly different organisms was, in comparison, an event.

 

Is this at all helpful in our attempts to explain the origin of language? It is a beneficial outcome brought on by the collaboration of many different features, all already grown by natural selection for a completely different benefit.

 

there is the matter of catastrophic selection that may have played a role.

 

for humans & language, imagine that during a transitional period in a group/tribe of people when "speakers" were a minority, they might gather together as a subgroup as we peeps are wont to do. along comes a natural disaster of some sort and by some virtue of their speakabilities, whether physically grouping or crying out warnings/instructions or some such a matter, the sub-group survives the disaster and the rest not. voila. a new starting group exclusively of speakers. :hyper:

 

:eek: just some thoughts. :eek:

[Miranda]

for humans & language, imagine that during a transitional period in a group/tribe of people when "speakers" were a minority, they might gather together as a subgroup as we peeps are wont to do. along comes a natural disaster of some sort and by some virtue of their speakabilities, whether physically grouping or crying out warnings/instructions or some such a matter, the sub-group survives the disaster and the rest not. voila. a new starting group exclusively of speakers.

But that's a wee bit convenient, eh?:hihi:

[Turtle]

But that's a wee bit convenient, eh?:hihi:

 

so what if it is/was? catastrophic selection happens & we be speakin'. :hihi: the global catastrophe of 65 million years ago, also convenient for us mammals; not so much for the dinos. did you know some of the earliest cave drawings are thought to be 'porn' from teenagers?* so it goes.

 

* >>Cave paintings show aspects of sex beyond the reproductive - DominicanToday.com

Madrid.– Cave men had sex on their mind and they put it on their walls in etched and painted images that portray an aspect of carnal pleasure beyond the merely reproductive, according to two Spanish experts on the subject.

 

Eroticism is not an interest exclusive to modern humans, and the first Homo sapiens to arrive in Europe 40,000 years ago already exhibited complex sexual behavior that they illustrated in a few cave paintings, creating humanity's first Kama Sutra.

 

Two professors at the Universidad del Pais Vasco in northern Spain, Marcos Garcia Diez and Javier Angulo, are among the few archaeologists who are studying these artistic renderings of erotic behavior among early humans.

[Miranda]

So a portion of the population of whatever time period had the beginning abilities for language...a big accident happens, and wipes out the non-speakers making way for language to flourish. Alright, I suppose. I'm just saying it's not likely.

[sman]

So a portion of the population of whatever time period had the beginning abilities for language...a big accident happens, and wipes out the non-speakers making way for language to flourish. Alright, I suppose. I'm just saying it's not likely.

 

 

 

Or necessary. If we assume a portion of the population had the beginning abilities for language....the behavior of primate groups takes care of it from there. Primate groups, to take the model of chimpanzee groups, are always growing and splitting. They split along lines of similarity. Similarity is usually in the form of some very subtle behavior marker, completely non-salient when the group is small, but when the group splits up it is picked out by the individuals of one group and made more conspicuous, and by the other group made taboo. Soon the two will go to war and one will be exterminated. I'm just going by Jane Goodall.

[Turtle]

So a portion of the population of whatever time period had the beginning abilities for language...a big accident happens, and wipes out the non-speakers making way for language to flourish. Alright, I suppose. I'm just saying it's not likely.

 

:hyper: not likely compared to what? how have you calculated that probability? let me ask you, what is the probability of something happening that has never happened before? :)

[Miranda]

If such a disaster was big enough, wouldn't it destroy those who have language abilities as well? When and where did this mass population wipeout occur?

 

It is also unlikely based on how language works to begin with. I also agree with what Sman said about language being more of a continuum. It sounds like the idea of catastrophic selection (as applied to language) is assuming that language is a genetic trait that came into existence through a mutation that is passed down to special individuals, and can attributed to phenotypic characteristics. However, it has yet to be shown that language abilities really work like this at all. If we had a definitive ‘language gene’ that we could identify, then it would imply that language abilities could also be a recessive trait, and not show in some people. But this isn’t the case. Every human is born with the capability to acquire language, and language impairment in some individuals arises due to indirect means, such as damage to brain areas, etc. and not because their phenotype is suppressed. Language ability is an amalgamation of other traits, such as hearing, seeing, and the structure of the mouth and vocal tract. Thus, language isn’t a self contained genetic entity, but is dependent on the development of the rest of our brain and body. So to talk about it as if there’s a phenotype for language that can be (naturally or catastrophically) selected is to jump to many unproven conclusions.

 

But it is a creative idea :)

[Turtle]

If such a disaster was big enough, wouldn't it destroy those who have language abilities as well? When and where did this mass population wipeout occur?

 

"big enough" is relative to the size of the group. what shall we use? what would a typical human group look like 100,000+ years ago? 50 individuasl? 100 individuals? how many people could a flash flood kill if they were living on a flood plain? anyway, your skepticism isn't supported by any real data and it belies the fact that 'unlikey' things happen all the time. the dino's (along with a lot of other life) are extinct because of a highly unlikely occurance. we are speaking & language using creatures, in spite of the apparent odds against that judging by all the other life forms we are aware of. **** happens, to quote a vulgar phrase. :)

 

It is also unlikely based on how language works to begin with. I also agree with what Sman said about language being more of a continuum. It sounds like the idea of catastrophic selection (as applied to language) is assuming that language is a genetic trait that came into existence through a mutation that is passed down to special individuals, and can attributed to phenotypic characteristics.

 

isn't the hyoid bone a mutation? isn't it necessary for our speaking? wasn't there a 'first' hyoid bone in hominids? how is this a 'continuum'?

 

But it is a creative idea :hyper:

 

indeed; after all, that is the real survival advantage of language, to pass along creative ideas. :rant: