How did human language originate?

[lpetrich]

Human languages are far ahead of anything similar that any other present-day species uses, with the possible exception of dolphin language. Attempts to teach chimpanzees and other (nonhuman) great apes sign language have had only limited success. They can learn lots of signs, but their ability to combine the signs is very limited at best. Three or four year old human children are far ahead of them there.

But that has not gotten in the way of many biologists and linguists, and they have developed various theories, even giving some of them whimsical names. Here's what I've found:

• ma-ma -- attaching the easiest syllables to significant objects (?)
• ta-ta -- imitation of body movements like gestures (Sir Richard Paget 1930)
• bow-wow -- imitation of sounds (?, Max Müller 1861)
• pooh-pooh -- interjections, instinctive emotive cries (?, Max Müller 1861)
• ding-dong -- sounds and meanings corresponding, like sound symbolism (?, Max Müller 1861)
• yo-he-ho -- rhythmic chants, like when coordinating efforts in heavy work (?, Max Müller 1861)
• la-la, sing-song -- pleasant audio doodling (Otto Jespersen 1921)
• hey-you -- assertion of identity and calling to others (Géza Révész 1956)
• uh-oh -- warnings (?)
• hocus-pocus -- magical / religious acts (C. George Boeree)
• eureka -- consciously invented (?)
• watch-the-birdie -- lying (Edgar A. Sturtevant 1922)
• pop -- language popped into existence as an evolutionary byproduct (Stephen Jay Gould)

This list is missing echolocation. The ping-ping theory?

Various animal sounds fall into some of these categories, like uh-oh and hey-you and ping-ping.

Sources:
 Origin of language
The Origins of Language - C. George Boeree
Historical Linguistics (PowerPoint)
Linguistic Hypotheses on the Origins of Language | Free Language
The Origin of Language (MSWord)
The Origin of Language : Sturtevant, E. H. : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive
The Evolution of Language

 

[lpetrich]

I've found a very weird theory about the origin of human language. It is that it emerged from singing. Like this:

Did Music Evolve Before Language?

But a brief excursion into some other features.

How similar are the gestures of apes and human infants? More than you might suspect
Suggesting a common origin.

Monkey lip smacks provide new insights into the evolution of human speech
Many species of monkeys make lip-smack sounds in friendly situations, like mothers with their babies. But X-raying macaques as they smack their lips reveals some behind-the-scenes complexities and similarities with human speech.

Chimps can also make sounds with their lips, including lip smacks and lip buzzes. These seem to be under voluntary control and they can be learned, unlike their vocalizations, like hoots and grunts.

The missing piece of the puzzle is the origin of voluntary control of the larynx.

Back to the singing theory.

How human language could have evolved from birdsong: Researchers propose new theory on deep roots of human speech

"The sounds uttered by birds offer in several respects the nearest analogy to language," Charles Darwin wrote in "The Descent of Man" (1871), while contemplating how humans learned to speak. Language, he speculated, might have had its origins in singing, which "might have given rise to words expressive of various complex emotions."

Now researchers from MIT, along with a scholar from the University of Tokyo, say that Darwin was on the right path. The balance of evidence, they believe, suggests that human language is a grafting of two communication forms found elsewhere in the animal kingdom: first, the elaborate songs of birds, and second, the more utilitarian, information-bearing types of expression seen in a diversity of other animals.

I think that the birdsong bit is an analogy, and that this is a singing-before-speech theory. The idea here is that making a range of sounds evolved as singing, where the sounds would not have to carry much semantic load. Once that happened, making that range of sounds could then be used for language.

More on this theory:
Evolution of Language - Abstracts
The singing origin theory of speech.
Dr. John R. Skoyles

Parsimony

Logical arguments about precedence underlie important areas of science, for example, the conjecture that RNA life arose before life based upon proteins and DNA (Freeland, Knight & Landweber, 1999). Similar precedence arguments apply to why human song preceded speech. For humans to sing requires: (i) the capacity to produce and learn repetitive patterns, and (ii) the thoracic control of expirations to enable long sequences of different tones and articulations made upon a single out breath. However, speech requires at least two additional components: syntax and word vocabulary. The latter consists itself of two components: the ability to link semantics to word pronunciations (both in perception and production), and the ability to acquire words and their meaning from their presence in the talk of others. An asymmetry thus exists: while the components needed for song can independently precede those needed for speech (you can sing without words and syntax), those for speech cannot independently precede those needed for song (speech needs the breath control required for song). The evolution of biological structures, moreover, goes through stages whereby inherited modifications become increasingly complex by additions -- feathers, for example, preceded their use in flight by initially being evolved to provide thermal insulation then only became structurally adapted (elongation etc) as wing feathers. Song has many functional advantages (see below), and is a form of communication that easily mixes with speech (chants, prayers, poetry). Thus, it is a natural proto-stage which could initially arise and then further develop by elaboration into speech.

 

[lpetrich]

If our ancestors sang before they used spoken language, then why might they have started singing?


Religion And Music… And Lions | διά πέντε / dia pente
reporting on
Music in Human Evolution - Melting Asphalt by Kevin Simler
reporting on
Joseph Jordania's book Why Do People Sing?: Music in Human Evolution.

He notes these features of us and our evolution after our split with chimps' ancestors:

• We are rather wimpy, with shrunken fangs and the like.
• Lion evolution has paralleled our evolution in some ways, including sociality.
• We are the only land-surface singers. All other singing species are either arboreal or aquatic. Me: wolves howl and lions roar, so they are partial counterexamples.
• We are the only rhythm-users.
• We often dance when we sing, and we often do so in groups.
• Rhythmic chanting and dancing can get us into trance states.
• JJ proposes that early hominids ate their dead. Among present-day humanity, protecting corpses and then disposing of them is essentially universal.

KS notes that our ancestors a few million years back were likely scavengers instead of hunters, and he notes two types of scavenging:

Passive scavenging, coming across an undefended dead body. Even one that predators had already eaten can have some meat left, like bone marrow. In fact, there's some evidence of smashed bones from there and then.

Confrontational scavenging, stealing some prey from its eaters. That's more difficult, for obvious reasons, but it does happen. Did our ancestors back then do some of that?

Despite our wimpiness back then, JJ proposes that we had a weapon that other species did not have. We could throw stones. We didn't have to hunt with them, just drive off predators who were attacking us or predators who we wanted to steal prey from.

JJ proposes an Audio-Visual Intimidation Display:

My suggestion is that our ancestors turned loud singing into a central element of their defence system against predators. They started using loud, rhythmic singing and shouting accompanied by vigorous, threatening body movements and object throwing to defend themselves from predators.

It's a way of seeming very threatening by seeing very big and loud.

Me: that's one possibility, but another one would be like lion roars and wolf howls: to advertise oneself to other members of one's group, and to advertise one's group's presence to rival groups.

JJ proposes that when our ancestors did an AVID against some predators, they may have gone into a "battle trance" state, something that would make them less fearful of their targets fighting back. It would be safe to be less cautious if your friends were fighting alongside, and you would be more dangerous to your targets.

 

[iolo]

I don't think the origins of language are knowable, but it is a bit sad that our current thought is so totally shaped by a scarcely-human medium.

 

[lpetrich]

I don't think the origins of language are knowable, but it is a bit sad that our current thought is so totally shaped by a scarcely-human medium.

What do you mean?

 

[rousseau]

Is it possible that our ability to use language effectively became selective at some point?

They say the best way to understand the past is to look at the present, and in the present the people who have reproductive success are almost unanimously effective communicators to some extent, or at least above a certain threshold.

Today, to have a successful relationship, mate, produce children, you need to be able to build trust with the language you use, not only with your partner, but with the people you work with, your family, and on and on.

That said, it seems logical to me that throughout our history there has been a pressure toward people who are better communicators, which has had the side effect of language growth.

 

[untermensche]

Chomsky says that language originated as a means of thought and vocalization of language is a secondary property that arose after the language capacity arose.

He uses example after example where structural efficiency, a hierarchical overriding structure, is used in human language and communicative efficiency, linear efficiency, is not.

He proposes that the language ability arose randomly in a single individual and was passed to offspring, and the offspring with the ability to think with the language ability were better able to survive and eventually the ability to think was incorporated into what was probably already a system of animal communication of grunts and squeaks and snorts.

Chomsky differentiates between animal communication and human language.

Chomsky likes to mock all the work on the so-called 'evolution of language'.

He says the language ability has not changed during human existence.

He mocks the idea that animal communication somehow slowly evolved into the language capacity. He uses the aspect of language called 'discreet infinity' to make this argument. Language is a system of discreet infinity. Theoretically a human could say infinite sentences or understand infinite sentences. A sentence could theoretically have infinite words. But language is broken up into discreet bits, words. You can have a sentence with 5 words. You can have a sentence with 6 words. But you can't have a sentence with 5 1/2 words. So a sentence can be infinite but it exists in discreet bits that can't be divided. Language is a system of discreet infinity. To Chomsky this is a very significant fact. Because you can't reach infinity in steps. You can't slowly evolve a system of animal communication using discreet bits into an infinite system. It is something that happened all at once.

 

[lpetrich]

Chomsky says that language originated as a means of thought and vocalization of language is a secondary property that arose after the language capacity arose. ...

He proposes that the language ability arose randomly in a single individual and was passed to offspring, and the offspring with the ability to think with the language ability were better able to survive and eventually the ability to think was incorporated into what was probably already a system of animal communication of grunts and squeaks and snorts.

Chomsky differentiates between animal communication and human language.

Chomsky likes to mock all the work on the so-called 'evolution of language'.

He says the language ability has not changed during human existence.

Seems quasi-creationist.

He mocks the idea that animal communication somehow slowly evolved into the language capacity. He uses the aspect of language called 'discreet infinity' to make this argument. Language is a system of discreet infinity. Theoretically a human could say infinite sentences or understand infinite sentences. A sentence could theoretically have infinite words. But language is broken up into discreet bits, words. You can have a sentence with 5 words. You can have a sentence with 6 words. But you can't have a sentence with 5 1/2 words. So a sentence can be infinite but it exists in discreet bits that can't be divided. Language is a system of discreet infinity. To Chomsky this is a very significant fact. Because you can't reach infinity in steps. You can't slowly evolve a system of animal communication using discreet bits into an infinite system. It is something that happened all at once.

That seems to me like a rather silly argument. The key to making an infinite sentence is having an open-ended grammar, one that permits sentences to be arbitrarily long. Like "The dog chased the cat, that was chasing the dog, that was chasing the dog, that was chasing the cat, ..."

In Backus-Naur form:
SENTENCE ::= DEFNANIMAL " was chasing " DEFNANIMAL ", " RELCLAUSE
RELCLAUSE ::= "that was chasing " DEFNANIMAL ", " RELCLAUSE
DEFNANIMAL ::= "the " ANIMAL
ANIMAL ::= "dog" | "cat"

A simpler one would be "The dog and the cat and the dog and the dog and the cat ..."

In BNF:
SENTENCE ::= DEFNANIMAL ADDED
ADDED ::= " and " DEFNANIMAL ADDED

So once one can do recursion, one can do infinite sentences.

One can have syntax without such indefinite extensibility, like permitting only sentences like "The dog chased the cat" or two-member conjunction phrases like "The dog and the cat".

BNF again:

No relative-clause chains:
SENTENCE ::= DEFNANIMAL " was chasing " DEFNANIMAL ", " RELCLAUSE
RELCLAUSE ::= "that was chasing " DEFNANIMAL

No relative clauses:
SENTENCE ::= DEFNANIMAL " was chasing " DEFNANIMAL

No conjunction chains:
SENTENCE ::= DEFNANIMAL ADDED
ADDED ::= " and " DEFNANIMAL

No conjunctions:
SENTENCE ::= DEFNANIMAL

So one can get a sequence:
No syntax -> simple syntax (bounded-length phrases) -> more complex syntax (unbounded-length phrases)

 

[EricK]

But aren't there people with certain mental disabilities who have some language skills but do not have the full language capabilities that most human enjoy? And doesn't that show that language isn't an all-or-nothing proposition?

 

[untermensche]

Seems quasi-creationist.

What exactly does a random mutation have to do with creationism?

He mocks the idea that animal communication somehow slowly evolved into the language capacity. He uses the aspect of language called 'discreet infinity' to make this argument. Language is a system of discreet infinity. Theoretically a human could say infinite sentences or understand infinite sentences. A sentence could theoretically have infinite words. But language is broken up into discreet bits, words. You can have a sentence with 5 words. You can have a sentence with 6 words. But you can't have a sentence with 5 1/2 words. So a sentence can be infinite but it exists in discreet bits that can't be divided. Language is a system of discreet infinity. To Chomsky this is a very significant fact. Because you can't reach infinity in steps. You can't slowly evolve a system of animal communication using discreet bits into an infinite system. It is something that happened all at once.

That seems to me like a rather silly argument. The key to making an infinite sentence is having an open-ended grammar, one that permits sentences to be arbitrarily long. Like "The dog chased the cat, that was chasing the dog, that was chasing the dog, that was chasing the cat, ..."

Nothing silly about it at all.

You are just repeating the same idea. That is silly.

Chomsky has spent his life, and in his mid-eighties he is still going strong, studying language.

His ideas cannot be swept away with the flick of a wrist.

You simply don't comprehend the import.

 

[untermensche]

But aren't there people with certain mental disabilities who have some language skills but do not have the full language capabilities that most human enjoy? And doesn't that show that language isn't an all-or-nothing proposition?

The language capacity varies between individuals.

But without the language capacity an animal cannot turn the chaos that is the sounds of language into something comprehensible.

You see the world because the brain has the visual capacity. It can turn light energy into a picture of the world.

You comprehend language because the brain has a language capacity and can turn sound into something that is comprehensible.

 

[iolo]

I don't think the origins of language are knowable, but it is a bit sad that our current thought is so totally shaped by a scarcely-human medium.

What do you mean?

We can't think without language, which imposes all sorts of patterns on that thinking, like, in our case, an obsession with time and number, and an imperative to believe in the fantasy 'I'. This language was created by creatures very close to the apes.

 

[untermensche]

What do you mean?

We can't think without language, which imposes all sorts of patterns on that thinking, like, in our case, an obsession with time and number, and an imperative to believe in the fantasy 'I'. This language was created by creatures very close to the apes.

Not necessarily.

Again, there is the view of somebody like Chomsky, who has looked at language for decades, that human language is nothing like animal communication and it is not some gradual extension of animal communication. It is something that arose quickly and only exists in humans.

 

[lpetrich]

(Me: Noam Chomsky's ideas of the origin of language: quasi-creationist)

What exactly does a random mutation have to do with creationism?

Because it is a "one big jump" theory.

That's a nice feature of the singing theory of the origin of language: it does not require a single big jump.

 

[lpetrich]

But aren't there people with certain mental disabilities who have some language skills but do not have the full language capabilities that most human enjoy? And doesn't that show that language isn't an all-or-nothing proposition?

Yes.

Aphasia

• Difficulty producing language:
  • Experience difficulty coming up with the words they want to say
  • Substitute the intended word with another word that may be related in meaning to the target (e.g., "chicken" for "fish") or unrelated (e.g., "radio" for "ball")
  • Switch sounds within words (e.g., "wish dasher" for "dishwasher")
  • Use made-up words (e.g., "frigilin" for "hamburger")
  • Have difficulty putting words together to form sentences
  • String together made-up words and real words fluently but without making sense
• Difficulty understanding language:
  • Misunderstand what others say, especially when they speak fast (e.g., radio or television news) or in long sentences
  • Find it hard to understand speech in background noise or in group situations
  • Misinterpret jokes and take the literal meaning of figurative speech (e.g., "it's raining cats and dogs")
• Difficulty reading and writing:
  • Difficulty reading forms, pamphlets, books, and other written material
  • Problems spelling and putting words together to write sentences
  • Difficulty understanding number concepts (e.g., telling time, counting money, adding/subtracting)

There is also  dyslexia and  dysgraphia, difficulty in reading and writing. It is interesting that written language has become so widely used, despite it being very recent in humanity's history. This suggests that no genetic changes have been necessary for understanding and generating written language.

Communication problems | Headway -- Broca's area is involved in generating language, while Wernicke's area is involved in understanding language.

 

[iolo]

We can't think without language, which imposes all sorts of patterns on that thinking, like, in our case, an obsession with time and number, and an imperative to believe in the fantasy 'I'. This language was created by creatures very close to the apes.

Not necessarily.

Again, there is the view of somebody like Chomsky, who has looked at language for decades, that human language is nothing like animal communication and it is not some gradual extension of animal communication. It is something that arose quickly and only exists in humans.

So? The question is whether we can think much beyond its crazy confines.

 

[untermensche]

(Me: Noam Chomsky's ideas of the origin of language: quasi-creationist)

What exactly does a random mutation have to do with creationism?

Because it is a "one big jump" theory.

That's a nice feature of the singing theory of the origin of language: it does not require a single big jump.

You assume it was a big jump.

It may have been a small but crucial change.

 

[lpetrich]

(Me: Noam Chomsky's ideas of the origin of language: quasi-creationist)

Because it is a "one big jump" theory.

That's a nice feature of the singing theory of the origin of language: it does not require a single big jump.

You assume it was a big jump.

It may have been a small but crucial change.

Like what?

Seems to me that I should think of a name for it. I propose the jump theory, though it could be called a version of the pop theory.

 

[Malintent]

You assume it was a big jump.

It may have been a small but crucial change.

Like what?

Seems to me that I should think of a name for it. I propose the jump theory, though it could be called a version of the pop theory.

like a gradual change from a closed call system to an open call system
like a gradual gain in the ability to abstract and create representations of not only the tangible, but the intangible
like a gradual shift from vocalizations to inscribed symbolism, to written language

I don't see a need to invoke some special 'pop' theory into it when gradual changes in linguistic abilities are observable.

Also, animals' closed call systems are actually quite sophisticated... and that animals are able to learn other animals' systems for the purpose of manipulating them is also quite fascinating... and limits the extent to which one can call human language completely unique.

 

[untermensche]

You assume it was a big jump.

It may have been a small but crucial change.

Like what?

Seems to me that I should think of a name for it. I propose the jump theory, though it could be called a version of the pop theory.

The brain is incredibly complex.

A small change may have led to a big effect.

And the evidence supports this theory. A very rapid change in the behavior of some great apes as evidenced by cultural artifacts.

Nothing you say takes the position outside normal modern evolutionary theory.