How did language originate?

[arkain101]

A good experiment for the origin of language would be to make up a language from scratch, where you need to use a new sound (s) for everything. We will put an apple on the table, and everyone will give it a name until we all agree. To label hundreds of things it is a creativity exercise. To agree on anything, will require discussions or voting, but these need to be done without language, or until the new language allows us to communicate at this level. That can create a odd situation. How do you agree upon new words, without any new words to express your opinion or vote?

 

Thats actually a really good idea. Someone should start a topic about creating a simple but new language. I would be interested to see what the outcome is, how difficult it is. Of course this would not be done overnight, but may be a thread that lasts for years?

 

This is on topic to some extent. After all it would be a great way to answer the question.

[Miranda]

A good experiment for the origin of language would be to make up a language from scratch, where you need to use a new sound (s) for everything.

Thats actually a really good idea. Someone should start a topic about creating a simple but new language. I would be interested to see what the outcome is, how difficult it is. Of course this would not be done overnight, but may be a thread that lasts for years?

 

This is on topic to some extent. After all it would be a great way to answer the question.

 

Derek Bickerton applies this idea to pidgin languages. Pidgins are essentially formed by speakers who don't share a common language, and thus have to create one from scratch between one another. There are also invented auxiliary languages that are like this; Esperanto is an example of an intentionally invented language and was designed for speakers who do not share a common language.

But there really isn't an answer to how lanugage originated, because that question itself kind of implies that not only can 'language' be quantified, but that it just popped up one day between multiple individuals. Don't expect a definite answer any time soon :ud:

[sman]

But there really isn't an answer to how lanugage originated, because that question itself kind of implies that not only can 'language' be quantified, but that it just popped up one day between multiple individuals. Don't expect a definite answer any time soon :shrug:

 

I must protest here. We are a long way off from knowing the first thing about extra-terrestrial life, but that doesn't stop us from quantifying the probability. I think the origin of language is just as exciting a topic and I'd hate to shrug it off as unapproachable. It seem like we could at least triangulate an estimate.

 

Language is required for the cognative niche, so....30 thou years ago. Language is common to all modern humans, so.....80 thou years ago (as long as modern humans have occupied Australia). We can trim the estimate from the other end by listing the biological/neurological requirements for language and dating these. For instance, how old is the present (and conspicuous) position of the larnyx in the human line? Of course, it's not really clear whether this feature is a requirement for language but the cognative abilities for recursion and embedding of concepts certainly are. But then, these are harder to date.

 

Anyway, I don't think it's futile. The origin of language may seem like an airy-fairy thing to chase around, but I think its a fine topic for the forums, which are just fun and don't require research grants.

[Miranda]

I must protest here. We are a long way off from knowing the first thing about extra-terrestrial life, but that doesn't stop us from quantifying the probability.

We can quantify the probability of extra-terrestrial life because if we found life, we would know that it is life and what life constitutes.

 

How are we defining language in this context? Are we considering animal communication? If so, then 'language' goes infinitely back to the first communicating creatures, however they communicated. If not, then where do we draw the line between language and communication? If we are only talking about human language, then how far back in our lineage are we considering to be 'humans'? What about Neandertals, who may not have been in our lineage? How would we know that we've discovered the origins of language if we don't know exactly what we're looking for?

 

This is what I meant by not being able to quantify language. How do we discern language as some independent entity? There are many facets to what makes language what it is. It's not a singular concrete thing, that arrived via some gene mutation (as far as we know). I'm not trying to ban the study of language origins (like France). I'm saying that we need to set parameters for what we mean by 'language' in this thread before we can say when it began.

[sman]

We can quantify the probability of extra-terrestrial life because if we found life, we would know that it is life and what life constitutes.

 

How are we defining language in this context? Are we considering animal communication? If so, then 'language' goes infinitely back to the first communicating creatures, however they communicated. If not, then where do we draw the line between language and communication? If we are only talking about human language, then how far back in our lineage are we considering to be 'humans'? What about Neandertals, who may not have been in our lineage? How would we know that we've discovered the origins of language if we don't know exactly what we're looking for?

 

This is what I meant by not being able to quantify language. How do we discern language as some independent entity? There are many facets to what makes language what it is. It's not a singular concrete thing, that arrived via some gene mutation (as far as we know). I'm not trying to ban the study of language origins (like France). I'm saying that we need to set parameters for what we mean by 'language' in this thread before we can say when it began.

 

Thanks for firing back.:Alien: I'm very excited by this topic.

 

My very first try (Wiki) gave me exactly the kind of definition for language that defends my post. It is not true that there is a continuous grade of examples of communication from, say, bacteria to human language. Nor from humans communicating with some other symbols or code, smoke signals or something, becoming more and more complicated and culminating in language. Rather, language has a specific suite of features that set it apart from other communication. It is more marked, I think, than life from non-life. This makes it meaningful to look for a date.

[Miranda]

Ah, ok. We will agree on language as having the property of grammar...this sounds good for now. Lets start over. So, we are considering language to be grammatical communication. I think that Neandertals should be considered in the equation as well. I also agree with applying language to the genus Homo. Where shall we go from here?

[Turtle]

Ah, ok. We will agree on language as having the property of grammar...this sounds good for now. Lets start over. So, we are considering language to be grammatical communication. I think that Neandertals should be considered in the equation as well. I also agree with applying language to the genus Homo. Where shall we go from here?

 

I don't see any mention yet of the physiology of speech and it seems worth mentioning. Fits nicely with your inclusion of Neanderthals, as they have found them to have hyoid bones which play an important role in our own speech abilites. :Alien:

 

hyoid - encyclopedia article about hyoid.

... The hyoid bone is involved in the production of human speech. It allows a wider range of tongue and laryngeal movements by bracing these structures against each other. It is not present in any of our closest living relatives, but it did exist in virtually identical form in Neanderthal man. That suggests, along with other anthropological clues of communication, that the Neanderthal employed some form of spoken language. ...

[Miranda]

Along with the hyoid bone, Neandertals were thought to possibly have cultural practices, which would be much more possible with an advanced communication system such as language.

I always find the hyoid bone to be an interesting point. Ok, so this puts the language estimate around at least 300,000 ya. However, language may not have been a result of having a hyoid bone. Most things evolve for a reason, so what if the hyoid bone evolved because of increasing language abilities? A descended larynx would have to come around to make speech easier for already-speaking individuals. Thus, language would be placed earlier than that.

 

What next?

[enorbet2]

Perhaps due to the proliferation of information and the "cross-pollination" of so many fields and here I am referring especially to the Sciences but rather recently it has been interpolated that Neanderthals had a greater need for a more precise method of communication because they hunted with short, heavy thrusting spears implying herding and ambushing by groups working together. Homo Sapiens on the other hand had lighter throwing spears which at least makes it possible to hunt alone. The very fact that the two - let's just call them cultures for now - invented and stayed with those specific weapons/hunting tools may even reflect the kinds of culture, one more rooted in the group and the other more individualistic. Obviously a group oriented society has greater need for precise communication than a more individualistic society.

 

Furthermore, since Neanderthal predated Homo Sapiens and are very recently found through DNA (the genome project for Neanderthal is fairly well linked and documented in another thread but here's another Neandertals have the same mutations in FOXP2, the language gene, as modern humans Anthropology.net ) to have the FoxP2 genes tightly associated with language it is postulated that they may have even influenced "modern" humans to adopt greater usage of language. This might also be implied because one major evolutionary advantage of Homo Sapiens was/is rapid adaptability proven in tool development and evidence of abstraction and creative imagination. (Neanderthals tools and lifestyles apparently remained essentially unchanged for thousands if not tens of thousands of years).

 

A quick note on animal or extra-terrestrial "grammar" I wonder if the group considers programming languages or even Morse Code as legitimate languages. If we consider that they indeed do have syntax and "grammar" then any phenomena whether smoke signals, radio waves, color, smell, etc that can be sent and received can be encoded, given sufficient technology naturally occurring or manufactured, to achieve sufficient complexity to be considered true language. It seems to me that language is simply the progression of communication essential to all life and drawing the line as to when it becomes definable as Language is arbitrary.

[sman]

Furthermore, since Neanderthal predated Homo Sapiens and are very recently found through DNA (the genome project for Neanderthal is fairly well linked and documented in another thread but here's another Neandertals have the same mutations in FOXP2, the language gene, as modern humans Anthropology.net ) to have the FoxP2 genes tightly associated with language it is postulated that they may have even influenced "modern" humans to adopt greater usage of language. This might also be implied because one major evolutionary advantage of Homo Sapiens was/is rapid adaptability proven in tool development and evidence of abstraction and creative imagination. (Neanderthals tools and lifestyles apparently remained essentially unchanged for thousands if not tens of thousands of years).

 

Let's remember that genes are named for the way they screw up, not for what they do. Mutations in the FoxP2 gene in humans correlates with speech disorders. That is how it has come to be known as the "language gene". Exactly what the unmutated gene does is less clear. People with mutated versions have trouble understanding more complex sentence structures such as sentences with embedded relative clauses, or recursion. This little trick permeates language in such a way that, without it, the whole thing kind of falls apart. Like removing only the bolts from an automobile.

We are talking about something commandeering many parts of the brain for an adaptive outcome. It is important that all of these parts were already doing something else adaptively when this happened. Compare with the way language has co-opted the tongue, teeth and nasal.

 

It could be convergent, as opposed to common lineage. Chloroquine resistant malaria, I understand, required the simultaneous mutations of two letter-codes at different loci. This is quantifiably the same difference as the FoxP2 alleles in humans and chimps, so it does happen. It's interesting that it hasn't happened in chimps though. But there are other correlations between humans and neanders that may have saved this mutation from deletion, like bipedalism. Certainly tool use.

 

Don't get me wrong - this is a great find! It certainly buttresses our 300 thou year mark, let's just keep in mind that it's not air-tight.

 

If we consider that they indeed do have syntax and "grammar" then any phenomena whether smoke signals, radio waves, color, smell, etc that can be sent and received can be encoded, given sufficient technology naturally occurring or manufactured, to achieve sufficient complexity to be considered true language. It seems to me that language is simply the progression of communication essential to all life and drawing the line as to when it becomes definable as Language is arbitrary.

 

This is the opposite of this:

 

It is not true that there is a continuous grade of examples of communication from, say, bacteria to human language. Nor from humans communicating with some other symbols or code, smoke signals or something, becoming more and more complicated and culminating in language. Rather, language has a specific suite of features that set it apart from other communication. It is more marked, I think, than life from non-life. This makes it meaningful to look for a date.

 

...which I feel is defensible. I think you're right to be reserved about it though. It sound like conceit. Other things we hold dear and would like to consider uniquely human, like intelligence, sentience, free will... have turned out to be the same things chickens and roaches have, just more of it.

[Miranda]

Homo Sapiens on the other hand had lighter throwing spears which at least makes it possible to hunt alone. The very fact that the two - let's just call them cultures for now - invented and stayed with those specific weapons/hunting tools may even reflect the kinds of culture, one more rooted in the group and the other more individualistic. Obviously a group oriented society has greater need for precise communication than a more individualistic society.

There are other things such as burial practices and possible asthetics that also point to a more developed culture in Neandertals as well.

Furthermore, since Neanderthal predated Homo Sapiens and are very recently found through DNA...to have the FoxP2 genes tightly associated with language it is postulated that they may have even influenced "modern" humans to adopt greater usage of language.

I would be reluctant to call FOXP2 the 'language gene', because that can lead to misunderstanding of what it is. It's true that FOXP2 is associated with language capabilities, but it is not an autonomous gene that gives us language. The gene is present in many other animals, but is expressed differently (mice are the main test subjects). It is said that Neandertals had a FOXP2 similar in alleles to the one in modern humans, but this doesn't mean that whoever has the gene will have language. Sman beat me to the punch of trying to explain FOXP2, but he did it much more eloquently than I had planned to :hihi: .

A quick note on animal or extra-terrestrial "grammar" I wonder if the group considers programming languages or even Morse Code as legitimate languages. If we consider that they indeed do have syntax and "grammar" then any phenomena whether smoke signals, radio waves, color, smell, etc that can be sent and received can be encoded, given sufficient technology naturally occurring or manufactured, to achieve sufficient complexity to be considered true language.

I think the main reference is to how natural languages occur in living organisms (which unfortunately only means humans). It seems plausible to refer to other patterning systems as 'languages', but those other systems do not occur without the intent of human individuals. We know how things like Morse Code and smoke signals are created, because they are ‘consciously’ (pardon my usage of the term) made by us and are modeled off our extant language ability. Now we are trying to figure out the creation of those language abilities. I doubt that one of our ancestors simply came up with the brilliant idea to make a language one day, with no prior knowledge of such a thing. Babies can acquire language without even trying, and this is part of the mystery of how our capabilities work.

It seems to me that language is simply the progression of communication essential to all life and drawing the line as to when it becomes definable as Language is arbitrary.

I almost agree. I do fear that if one day another animal forms comparable linguistic abilities, that we will be to anthropocentric to notice it. It does seem arbitrary to try to separate language as a measurable chunk, which was my problem in an earlier post, but it is also necessary to define the parameters of what we’re looking for. As Sman mentioned, there are peculiar qualities that make natural human language unique from other communications, and from other ‘patterns’. There is a culmination of certain functions that we construct language out of, naturally and with little effort, which make it separate from other simpler patterns and this linguistic feat has pushed us much farther than other animals. Language is hard to quantify, but we have to admit that there is something to it.

[enorbet2]

To be clear it was not my intention to declare FoxP2 "the language gene". I am seeking a preponderance of evidence here and given something of the capability (FoxP2, bone structure, brain size, etc) as well as the necessity (group planned and/or directed hunting, etc) the likelihood grows that Neanderthal had language very early on. It's just rather exciting to imagine that when the Neanderthal genome project is complete, what new possibilities may change our perceptions of our Family Tree.

[Miranda]

To be clear it was not my intention to declare FoxP2 "the language gene". I am seeking a preponderance of evidence here and given something of the capability (FoxP2, bone structure, brain size, etc) as well as the necessity (group planned and/or directed hunting, etc) the likelihood grows that Neanderthal had language very early on. It's just rather exciting to imagine that when the Neanderthal genome project is complete, what new possibilities may change our perceptions of our Family Tree.

This got me thinking...

Pardon this crude rambiling hypothesis here, and feel free to correct me: Neandertals share a common ancestor with Homo Sapiens, but one didn't evolve from the other...is this correct? We know that they lived simultaneously. So, it is kind of an odd thought experiment to think about two separate 'species' evolving the same linguistic capability. Unless perhaps their common ancestor already had language, thus passing it on to the decendents (Homo sapiens and Neandertals, etc.)...Or are they not related?

 

:hihi:

[enorbet2]

Miranda I don't find that crude or rambling but rather the "crux of the biscuit" at stake in the application of modern methodology to fill in the huge blanks that exist, whether from prejudice or simple lack of data, regarding Neanderthals.

 

There is at least one other specific and interesting thread on Neanderthals and it seems that mitochndrial DNA rules out Homo Sapiens evolving from Neanderthal. The discovery of a very odd child's burial remains, and a few other inconclusive bits of evidence, has fueled controversy as to whether Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens did the horizontal mambo, including offspring or not. The genome project could possibly solve whether or not Neanderthal genes were folded back in further up the tree from the common fork, assuming they forked later. Nobody knows if they smoked after the deed. Someone in alternate theories may claim this is actually how fire was discovered. The preceding is an actual example of crude and rambling <grin>

 

Obviously if they did cohabit but without offspring this point will remain moot until the sex tape is discovered, presumably in Betamax, but in all seriousness either way the implications are indeed profound relative to the evolution of Humankind and Language. It does seem rather unlikely that two species would evolve language independently in such a relatively short time frame under considerably different environmental pressures simply by virtue of such an incredibly small percentage of gene difference from others in the Great Ape family. Fascinating stuff!

[Turtle]

I recall from a distant memory fog, the claim that control of the tongue & hands were rooted in the same brain area. :shrug:This was given, also foggily recalled, as an explanation as to why we put our tongues out when working at some seriously hands on operation. :hyper: So, a quick Garggle and I found this to start and see if it gets us any further along. :hihi:

 

(sorry; can't copy/paste from the few pages we can look at. :eek_big: You can choose some pages to read at the link.)

 

Amazon.com: From Hand to Mouth: The Origins of Language: Michael C. Corballis: Books http://www.amazon.com/Hand-Mouth-Origins-Language/dp/0691088039#

[Miranda]

This was given, also foggily recalled, as an explanation as to why we put our tongues out when working at some seriously hands on operation.

I haven't read the passages from the book, but I have referenced a Language encyclopedia I have about this. It does say that since the localization for language skills and tool usage are in the same area of the brain, it might be possible that language arose from our increased tool usage. However, this isn't conclusive; other primates have shown to use tools, but their language ability is very minimal and underdeveloped.

[Turtle]

I haven't read the passages from the book, but I have referenced a Language encyclopedia I have about this. It does say that since the localization for language skills and tool usage are in the same area of the brain, it might be possible that language arose from our increased tool usage. However, this isn't conclusive; other primates have shown to use tools, but their language ability is very minimal and underdeveloped.

 

Nice to hear it's more than a bad meme. That it is yet fully understood is after all what doing science is all about and goes a fair way to putting us on to what questions we ought ask next. :confused:

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.

 

That's all I got. ......................:D

 

PS Didn't think I ought to leave off mention of the uniqueness of the opposable thumb in regards to our tool use and hominid evolution. Done & done.