How did language originate?

[enorbet2]

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.

 

Also noted by the Jane Goodall Society is that splitting can and does occur through environmental changes whether apocalyptic or gradual such as the formation of the Congo River separating what would become Bonobos from Chimpanzees. Naturally larger groups of animals, covering more territory, are more prone to simpler changes such as localized drought. Extermination or the threat of it may even have lent motivation to migration and exploration. IIRC this can be seen in human migration such as occurred everywhere but particularly in Asian migration through North and ultimately South America. It seems to me I recall that many so-called Indian tribes just along the West Coast had as many as hundreds of distinct dialects. I see no reason such cannot also apply to language as whole.

 

Again we may know more about this as studies gather more evidence that may shed light on the language difference between Homo Sapiens and Neanderthal.

[Miranda]

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.

Yes, because we have evidence that a disaster occured, and what it would have killed. Why would I provide evidence if I'm not the one presenting the idea? You have not yet provided anything for your claim either. I asked you for an example of a time period or a location of such an event, because I figured you came to this conclusion based on something evident, rather than a guess (not to say that's its bad if you guessed).

 

But isn't it more or less irrelevent? Even if early hominids had language abilities during such an event, it might not have been what necessarily helped them survive. There would have been other animals that survived the disaster without language. It would matter if such an event did wipe out the speaking population; but surviving a disaster is not what made language abilities flourish, because it would have done so regardless, as language proves useful in the environment as a whole. Saying that our ancestors might have survived a flood, hurricaine, etc. contributes little to the origins of language, because it presupposes its existence.

 

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'?

The hyoid bone does not prescribe language abilities. Actually, its the positioning of the hyoid due to the dropped larynx that makes it useful to humans. But besides this, the hyoid is of little use unless it is in conjunction with a more developed brain, motor control, and various senses as I mentioned prior. Yes, technically all of our attributes began as mutations of sorts, but my point was that language itself is not an autonomous entity that we can ascribe to one mutation. The 'continuum' applies the ability that comes from the combination of other (mutated) traits.

 

Originally Posted by Meander

But it is a creative idea

 

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

And did you refer to me as 'Meander' on purpose? lol :)

[Turtle]

... And did you refer to me as 'Meander' on purpose? lol :rant:

 

acknowledged all. :) mind you, i'm not married to the idea, but i am always suspicious and quick to question arguments of the flavor which point to a low probability (supported or not) and then declare that it is ridiculous to even consider the thing. for creative stories of how things may have happened, i recommend the clan-of-the-cave-bear series by jean aeul.

 

 

but, i digress. i watched a good NOVA program last night on PBS, and i think i've seen it before, but it is very much on about our language and how we compare to the apes. good stuff Maynard! :hyper:

 

>> NOVA | Ape Genius | PBS

[Miranda]

mind you, i'm not married to the idea, but i am always suspicious and quick to question arguments of the flavor which point to a low probability (supported or not) and then declare that it is ridiculous to even consider the thing.

Understood. Marrying ideas is a tricky business anyway...ends in messy divorce :hyper: :)

[Turtle]

Understood. Marrying ideas is a tricky business anyway...ends in messy divorce :hihi: B)

 

segue :D it takes two to tango they say, and the program i mentioned includes a number of interesting experiments with chimps & bonobos that bring to the fore evidence that a keen difference in they & we is cooperation. if you can watch that program (i think it is available online from that link*), please do and report back on any new insight it may give you on the origination of language. hey; i wonder if singing came before talking? ;) :shrug: :shrug:

 

*program online: >> NOVA | Ape Genius | Watch the Program | PBS

[sman]

It seems to me I recall that many so-called Indian tribes just along the West Coast had as many as hundreds of distinct dialects.

 

Check out New Guinae.

Ethnologue report for Papua New Guinea

 

You'll run the wheel down for a few moment before you notice the scroll bar is hardly moving. The list goes on and on.

 

Language "speciation" is a tricky subject. Some places it happens quickly, some more slowly. All the languages of the new world probably differentiated within the amout of time that Akkadian was spoken as a living language.:shrug:

[enorbet2]

Turtle (and all interested)

were you referring to this?

 

Music and Evolution: Music and the Neanderthal's Communication | Music Instinct | PBS

 

Or just the nature of inflection in many forms of communication even among "lower" animals and/or pitch dependent language?

[Turtle]

Turtle (and all interested)

were you referring to this?

 

Music and Evolution: Music and the Neanderthal's Communication | Music Instinct | PBS

 

Or just the nature of inflection in many forms of communication even among "lower" animals and/or pitch dependent language?

 

i'll have a read, but i didn't know of it when i mentioned singing. just some speculating on my part there.

[Turtle]

:rant: is music a language unto itself? i don't know either. :rant: :) :)

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/science/25flute.html?_r=1

Flutes Offer Clues to Stone-Age Music

...

Archaeologists Wednesday reported the discovery last fall of a bone flute and two fragments of ivory flutes that they said represented the earliest known flowering of music-making in Stone Age culture. They said the bone flute with five finger holes, found at Hohle Fels Cave in the hills west of Ulm, was “by far the most complete of the musical instruments so far recovered from the caves” in a region where pieces of other flutes have been turning up in recent years.

...

In an article published online by the journal Nature, Nicholas J. Conard of the University of Tübingen, in Germany, and colleagues wrote, “These finds demonstrate the presence of a well-established musical tradition at the time when modern humans colonized Europe.”

...

Dr. Conard, a professor of archaeology, said in an e-mail message from Germany that “the new flutes must be very close to 40,000 calendar years old and certainly date to the initial settlement of the region.”

[HydrogenBond]

I am of the belief that language developed due to necessity. Let me develop this premise with an example. If we had a group of people sitting around a table and we placed a simple known object in front of them, like an orange, and ask them to identify it, someone would quickly say, orange.

 

Next, we will place an unknown object on the table, that nobody has seen before. The group would now generate more words than just one, in an attempt to pin it down. With the known object, one word is enough to settle it. But with the unknown more words need to be generated.

 

In a simple, repetitive and predictable environment, where things are known, there is less need to generate many words. To increase the generation of words, we simply need to add unknowns. This could be done by migrating into new places. It could be due to forming civilization where manmade and/or gathered articles from many places, and customs, are concentrated in one place, placing more unknowns for everyone to see, etc.

 

The other possible cause, which may be more fundamental, is the evolution of human consciousness on top of animal consciousness. The animal consciousness is able to survive quite nicely without needing many sounds. Body language is often enough. The extra layer of consciousness within humans allows humans to see more detail, generating more words by adding more unknowns.

 

For example, the layman might see a tree in the woods. Someone who is knowledgeable in the biology of plants, is trained to sees much more detail. This is an analogy between animal and animal-human consciousness. A new tree is not just a new tree. The person who can see the details, will need to generate even more words, before they settle on a name since it may need to be more contextual.

 

Another effect, which could have helped human consciousness evolve, is connected to early religion. Religion creates a world of perception, associated with spirits and ghosts, which can make known objects, unpredictable. For example, the tree is only a tree to the objective mind. But once you add the religion effect and/or the tree spirit to the equation, the tree is now capable of doing many more things, in an unpredictable way. One is forced to look more carefully at the details, to see if the little ant will cause the leaf to twitch and wake up the spirit, etc.

 

Because the imagination is both personal and collective, not everyone will be seeing the same special effect or the same special effect at the same time. This would have the effect of making it harder for the group to close the labeling of the unknown, keeping word generation open longer.

 

I am digressing, but the bible tells of a stage language formation (Tower of Babel) where everyone begins to babble, unable to understand each other. This may have been caused by the tower to heaven causing each to see the special effect in their own unique way. Maybe everyone was generating new words for the experience and nobody was listening. The entropy in all the words, causes the group to scatter into different clicks.

 

As an example of the imagination and the need for generating words, the sober sailor sees the manatee. The sailor with the active imagination sees a mermaid. This sailor sees what he thinks he sees, and will need to generate words to convince the other, who can not see it. A third sailor's imagination, who is listening, becomes active and he starts to see the mermaid due to the words, but he sees a redhead and not a blond because that is the color of his wife's hair. Now there is another argument where a lot of words are generated, with the words only shut off or settled with sabers. Without the imagination active, the word manatee would have been the end, and then back to work.

 

If you look at modern times, political speeches are part objective substance and part rhetoric. Both groupings of words are used to help close the unknown questions and problems that appear in the minds and imaginations of the electorate. Rhetoric is far more effective since it reaches one at the emotional level. This may be more primitive. Whatever can sooth or animate the emotions are the word clusters that are most effective. This emotion connection may have been the primal cause and effect of word generation. The unknowns created unsettled emotions, such that whatever sounds can settle them, is easier to remember. That is why any student can learn more if they enjoy what they are learning. The words are more soothing and exciting while also labeling the unknowns brought into awareness.

[sman]

Although there are some misconceptions about language here, they don’t concern me nearly as much as the misconceptions about evolutionary biology.

 

I am of the belief that language developed due to necessity.

 

I believe this is the product of teleological thinking, which is often and easily, but nontheless falaciously, applied to biology. Teleology was Lamark’s guide to evolution, and he was smarter than us, so we should be very cautious of it. The process of evolution does not design systems according to any kind of necessity. It can only work with the variation in the way things are working in the here and now - cannot plan for the future.

 

The other possible cause, which may be more fundamental, is the evolution of human consciousness on top of animal consciousness. The animal consciousness is able to survive quite nicely without needing many sounds. Body language is often enough. The extra layer of consciousness within humans allows humans to see more detail, generating more words by adding more unknowns.

 

This is an excerpt from the 19th century. Human consciousness as some kind of high-tech, bolt-on accessory to animal consciousness. Human consciousness evolved in the same way that human liver evolved: any variation in the system that conferred a benefit in the given environment is selected for. As a result the liver, and the consciousness, evolved to maximize gene frequency for this variation.

 

The annunciations of linguistics are temporal, open to critisizm and open to new ideas. My advice is to make sure our ideas check out with Natural Selection, the strongest theory in science.

[SidewalkCynic]

I believe this is the product of teleological thinking, which is often and easily, but nontheless falaciously, applied to biology. Teleology was Lamark’s guide to evolution, and he was smarter than us, so we should be very cautious of it. The process of evolution does not design systems according to any kind of necessity. It can only work with the variation in the way things are working in the here and now - cannot plan for the future.

 

The annunciations of linguistics are temporal, open to critisizm and open to new ideas. My advice is to make sure our ideas check out with Natural Selection, the strongest theory in science.

But, we are able to plan for the future, so let's make sure our ideas check out with Natural Selection and ideas that are futile, or detrimental, are segregated until a verified conclusion can be determined.

 

And, I say we do things my way, because my way is the strongest way. And, for starters in association with this topic give me the proper liguistic characteristics for the concept, science?

 

From there we will begin work on, "it," "idea," and "religion."

[paigetheoracle]

How about as imitation? Saussure talks about language being signs - could communication have arisen by one being imitating what another did (animal/ human) and discovering in that mimicry, something familiar to its own experience? We see for instance, children driving adults wild by their imitating what adults say and do, without always realizing its significance until smacked round the mouth. We all feel and utter sounds in response to this - even hyenas laugh. Why scream, laugh or shout, if not to communicate to others? We might as well stay silent, unless this reaction is shared and acted upon by others. The way I see it imitation is signalling that you understand the message sent as in semaphore - mockery or criticism however is denial of the message and claiming it is invalid (unwanted - receiver doesn't want to act on it but instead denies its right to exist). It is the mental equivalent of putting yourself in the driving seat of a car. Bees use semaphore but verbal language is more subjective because unlike a visual map, you need to reassemble the pieces to make sense of the sequence delivered to you but I digress.

 

Verbal language probably developed with semaphore, to signal in hunting scenarios, where co-operation was needed, what the scout saw ahead and how to best deploy human resources, in order to trap and kill animals. It also probably developed to bring people together when danger threatened or help was needed. More subjective uses grew with time and civilization (the need for more and more sophisticated building techniques and the control of a larger and larger population).

[Kriminal99]

I don't think you need language to communicate anything animals care about. If someone places an orange on the table, grab it and growl and stare at anyone who objects. If a female comes around, do the same thing. If you have a kid, drop the orange on his head, his growling tummy will take care of the rest. etc etc you get the picture.

 

My hypothesis is that language evolved when a race of animals developed expressive contrast. When it became clear what laughter was by virtue of it being the same noise as one's self made in that state of mind, animals began looking for ways to invoke that state of mind in others.

[sman]

My hypothesis is that language evolved when a race of animals developed expressive contrast.

I'm interested. A race of chimpanzees is what we're looking at. Not exactly, but...let's just say that the ancestor of chimps & humans was much more similar to modern chimps that it was to modern humans.

When it became clear what laughter was by virtue of it being the same noise as one's self made in that state of mind, animals began looking for ways to invoke that state of mind in others.

I don't quite follow you here. Especially the part I've bolded. I often need things spelled out for me. :shrug:

 

Chimps laugh - it doesn't sound like our laugh, more like short, staccato barking - but it's triggered by remarkably similar circumstances... from social denigration to tickling.