How did human language originate?

[untermensche]

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.

The human language ability is nothing like animal communication.

All the studies that tried to teach other great apes sign language failed entirely in terms of acquisition of the human language ability. Animals can learn some labels but none except humans can communicate in sentences.

And humans normally acquire a language by mere exposure without any special effort.

There is clearly some aspect of human brain function that allows the human to acquire language that other brains of other animals do not have.

 

[Malintent]

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.

The human language ability is nothing like animal communication.

All the studies that tried to teach other great apes sign language failed entirely in terms of acquisition of the human language ability. Animals can learn some labels but none except humans can communicate in sentences.

And humans normally acquire a language by mere exposure without any special effort.

There is clearly some aspect of human brain function that allows the human to acquire language that other brains of other animals do not have.

yes, so? Actually, you are wrong about several of your statements... but even if you weren't.. so?

The giraffe ability to reach the top most leaves on trees is 'nothing like' the feeble human's ability to reach up high.
The fish's ability to stay under water for YEARS is 'nothing like' the feeble human's ability to splash around like an idiot in the water for a few seconds.

You suffer from the sharpshooter fallacy... you are barely hitting the broadside of a barn, walking up to it, circling your shot, and calling bull's-eye.

Also, After teaching Apes some basic words in sign language, the animals created new signs based on combinations of other signs to express ideas that they were not taught to express. I forget the details... but it was like they created their own compound words. Also, they then began to teach other Apes how to sign. I guess they found it useful.

Yes, clearly there is some unique brain function in humans that make us very good at developing and evolving languages. Highly selected for, no doubt.

 

[fromderinside]

Malintent wrote:

Yes, clearly there is some unique brain function in humans that make us very good at developing and evolving languages. Highly selected for, no doubt.

Certainly good then that man invented religion so we could look to Him to show us the way. (a hah hah hah um)

Mutation is a physical process that tends to happen a given rate when noise is reduced by averaging is the dominiant view currently in genetics. Whether language is a opportunistic feature that came along for the ride in such as the drives generated by tool making. Or whether language developed because of changes brought about by upright behavior such as jaw development favoring articulation. Or some other drive, perhaps even one brought about by the beginnings of language, after jaw and tool making had stabilized leading to more evolutionary steps bringing us to where we are today.

Obviously, given differences between isolated groups, evidence gathered examining the competition between Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal in Europe, and evidence gathered from comparing original man and migrated man over the past 120,000 years or so, particularly the past 60 thousand years there is ample evidence of continuing language evolution in humans. It may have even been an opportunistic mutation in some other species that was brought to man through infection or genetic communication of some sort. The evidence is pretty clear that language is part of a continuing communication evolution which includes systematic signing, facial and body posturing.

I leave this discussion with two relevant articles suggesting both the coevolution of language and toolmaking and the more recent changes in FOXP2 gene's articulation in the last 50k years or so.

Experimental Evidence for the Co-Evolution of Hominin Tool-Making Teaching and Language https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4338549/

A Recent Evolutionary Change Affects a Regulatory Element in the Human FOXP2 Gene http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/4/844.long

 

[Malintent]

Interesting stuff... I don't get the point of the first sentence of your post, though.

 

[untermensche]

The human language ability is nothing like animal communication.

All the studies that tried to teach other great apes sign language failed entirely in terms of acquisition of the human language ability. Animals can learn some labels but none except humans can communicate in sentences.

And humans normally acquire a language by mere exposure without any special effort.

There is clearly some aspect of human brain function that allows the human to acquire language that other brains of other animals do not have.

yes, so? Actually, you are wrong about several of your statements... but even if you weren't.. so?

The giraffe ability to reach the top most leaves on trees is 'nothing like' the feeble human's ability to reach up high.
The fish's ability to stay under water for YEARS is 'nothing like' the feeble human's ability to splash around like an idiot in the water for a few seconds.

You suffer from the sharpshooter fallacy... you are barely hitting the broadside of a barn, walking up to it, circling your shot, and calling bull's-eye.

Also, After teaching Apes some basic words in sign language, the animals created new signs based on combinations of other signs to express ideas that they were not taught to express. I forget the details... but it was like they created their own compound words. Also, they then began to teach other Apes how to sign. I guess they found it useful.

Yes, clearly there is some unique brain function in humans that make us very good at developing and evolving languages. Highly selected for, no doubt.

The apes never acquired anything close to human language.

Because human language is not some extension of animal communication.

It is something else entirely. You're either born with the ability or you are not.

It is not possible to move from animal communication, a finite system, to human language, an infinite system, in slow gradual steps. It's a computational system that enables infinite expression and comprehension. Comprehension of things never experienced before.

The evidence is that the ability developed whole.

 

[Malintent]

yes, so? Actually, you are wrong about several of your statements... but even if you weren't.. so?

The giraffe ability to reach the top most leaves on trees is 'nothing like' the feeble human's ability to reach up high.
The fish's ability to stay under water for YEARS is 'nothing like' the feeble human's ability to splash around like an idiot in the water for a few seconds.

You suffer from the sharpshooter fallacy... you are barely hitting the broadside of a barn, walking up to it, circling your shot, and calling bull's-eye.

Also, After teaching Apes some basic words in sign language, the animals created new signs based on combinations of other signs to express ideas that they were not taught to express. I forget the details... but it was like they created their own compound words. Also, they then began to teach other Apes how to sign. I guess they found it useful.

Yes, clearly there is some unique brain function in humans that make us very good at developing and evolving languages. Highly selected for, no doubt.

The apes never acquired anything close to human language.

yes. WE did. We ARE "acquired" from Apes... DUH!

Because human language is not some extension of animal communication.

human language IS animal communication...

It is something else entirely. You're either born with the ability or you are not.

If you mean that modern humans are born with the ability to LEARN language, then yes. We sure are. Just like Apes are born with the ability to learn to use tools. what is your point?

It is not possible to move from animal communication, a finite system, to human language, an infinite system, in slow gradual steps. It's a computational system that enables infinite expression and comprehension. Comprehension of things never experienced before.

This is a "half an eye" statement, and is completely incorrect. The terms you are struggling with are "open call" and "closed call" systems. We have directly observed closed call systems being adapted into open call systems. just search youtube for Koko.. plenty of examples of her expressing novel combinations of signs to express new ideas / words.

The evidence is that the ability developed whole.

you state an oxymoron here... did it develop, or was it poofed into existence whole?

 

[lpetrich]

It is not possible to move from animal communication, a finite system, to human language, an infinite system, in slow gradual steps. It's a computational system that enables infinite expression and comprehension. Comprehension of things never experienced before.

This is a "half an eye" statement, and is completely incorrect.

That's why I call that position quasi-creationist.

 Saltation (biology) -- discusses saltationism, the hypothesis that evolution occurs in jumps. Its opposite is gradualism.

Saltationism in general has had the problem of being a poorly-defined hypothesis, and it is easy to caricature that hypothesis with extreme forms of it, like Richard Goldschmidt's "hopeful monsters". However, our steadily-improving understanding of genetics has made it possible to construct some testable saltationist hypotheses. While "a lot of features in one big jump" continues to remain implausible, relatively small-scale jumps can and do occur.

 

[untermensche]

human language IS animal communication...

Many things are communication. Your expressions, your body language, your clothing. Language can be used for communication as well.

But the evidence is that language first developed as a means of thinking and slowly was coopted into what was probably already a system of crude animal communication.

Most of the use of language is in human thinking. The communication part is minor.

Thinking with language seems to be reflexive. It takes effort to stop it and as soon as the effort stops the thinking in language begins again.

It is only a modern dogma that language developed as a means of communication.

This is a "half an eye" statement

Not close.

The evidence is that the ability developed whole.

you state an oxymoron here... did it develop, or was it poofed into existence whole?

The evidence is that it came into existence whole.

That is a development.

 

[untermensche]

This is a "half an eye" statement, and is completely incorrect.

That's why I call that position quasi-creationist.

 Saltation (biology) -- discusses saltationism, the hypothesis that evolution occurs in jumps. Its opposite is gradualism.

Saltationism in general has had the problem of being a poorly-defined hypothesis, and it is easy to caricature that hypothesis with extreme forms of it, like Richard Goldschmidt's "hopeful monsters". However, our steadily-improving understanding of genetics has made it possible to construct some testable saltationist hypotheses. While "a lot of features in one big jump" continues to remain implausible, relatively small-scale jumps can and do occur.

Nothing creationist about saltation.

Nothing creationist about punctuated equilibrium.

Evolutionary change occurs in many ways.

There can be gradual change and there can also be rapid change.

All things depend on circumstance and which genes are involved.

Changes to regulatory genes can produce rapid changes.

 

[fromderinside]

Wouldn't it be more useful to the discussion to discuss how scientists other than Gould currently think language evolved. In case you hadn't noticed Gould died in 2002. Open topic about whither and how punctate evolution can be. What seems to work best is tying genes to anthropology and human advances. In the current situation we're talking about stuff involving FOXP2 and changes there about and the coming and going of competing species.

 

[fromderinside]

Interesting stuff... I don't get the point of the first sentence of your post, though.

Taking a shot at those arguing religion is is a genetic thing that is going somewhere by way of introduction to a complex and rich topic.

 

[untermensche]

Wouldn't it be more useful to the discussion to discuss how scientists other than Gould currently think language evolved. In case you hadn't noticed Gould died in 2002. Open topic about whither and how punctate evolution can be. What seems to work best is tying genes to anthropology and human advances. In the current situation we're talking about stuff involving FOXP2 and changes there about and the coming and going of competing species.

It is pure ignorance to think these ideas are particular to Gould.

They are widespread.

And in case you can't comprehend.

They are ideas well spelled out and people can try to show they are inaccurate.

Ultimately this is a highly speculative topic, but nobody on the planet has studied human language in greater depth than Chomsky. His ideas are the product of decades of deep thought and consideration.

They cannot be wiped away with the flick of a wrist. They are based on available evidence and logic as opposed to pure products of the imagination from somebody like Pinker.

 

[lpetrich]

[
like a gradual change from a closed call system to an open call system

What's closed call vs. open call? I searched for those phrases online, and I couldn't find anything that was relevant.

 

[lpetrich]

Ultimately this is a highly speculative topic, but nobody on the planet has studied human language in greater depth than Chomsky. His ideas are the product of decades of deep thought and consideration.

What gives you that idea?

As far as I can tell, Noam Chomsky considered mostly English. If one is going to do something like that, then one ought to consider a range of languages, like those with features collected in the World Atlas of Language Structure. You will find a *lot* of departures from what is typical in English.

 

[untermensche]

Ultimately this is a highly speculative topic, but nobody on the planet has studied human language in greater depth than Chomsky. His ideas are the product of decades of deep thought and consideration.

What gives you that idea?

As far as I can tell, Noam Chomsky considered mostly English. If one is going to do something like that, then one ought to consider a range of languages, like those with features collected in the World Atlas of Language Structure. You will find a *lot* of departures from what is typical in English.

Chomsky is familiar with the work on many languages, probably every language that has been looked at.

He is not just considering English.

Every language utilizes the same hierarchical features. While the languages as they are expressed may demonstrate different linear features.

When Chomsky talks about a "universal grammar" he is using the word "grammar" differently than most people understand the word. He is talking about a universal computational process in the brain that ultimately is the reason language exists. And while the computational process may yield different linear structures the overall hierarchical structures are universal.

Language is unique to humans. It most likely did not evolve slowly. It is not an extension of animal communication. It has hierarchical features that are universal.

 

[bilby]

What gives you that idea?

As far as I can tell, Noam Chomsky considered mostly English. If one is going to do something like that, then one ought to consider a range of languages, like those with features collected in the World Atlas of Language Structure. You will find a *lot* of departures from what is typical in English.

Chomsky is familiar with the work on many languages, probably every language that has been looked at.

He is not just considering English.

Every language utilizes the same hierarchical features. While the languages as they are expressed may demonstrate different linear features.

When Chomsky talks about a "universal grammar" he is using the word "grammar" differently than most people understand the word. He is talking about a universal computational process in the brain that ultimately is the reason language exists. And while the computational process may yield different linear structures the overall hierarchical structures are universal.

Language is unique to humans. It most likely did not evolve slowly. It is not an extension of animal communication. It has hierarchical features that are universal.

Sure.

You seem to be mired in Argumentum as Populum here.

How long and hard Chomsky has worked tells us very little about whether he is right; how much you (or people at large) admire him has exactly nothing to do with whether he is right; how numerous his supporters are likewise is irrelevant to the truth value of anything he claims.

It doesn't take a genius to identify when someone is in error. All genii are human, and all humans get things wrong occasionally.

All it takes to identify an error is the ability to spot an inconsistency between a claim and what is logically possible.

If Chomsky's position is correct, then it can be supported without the constant insistence on how wonderful and knowledgeable he is. That there appears to be little substance to your defence of his position other than your insistence that he is too good at what he does to possibly make an error, sets my skepticism alarms ringing.

No human attribute is truly unique - and that's to be expected given our shared ancestry with all other extant species on the planet. To claim otherwise is to make an extraordinary claim. And extraordinary claims cannot be defended by simply appealing to the genius of he who makes them.

In short, 'Evidence, or STFU'.

 

[untermensche]

Chomsky is familiar with the work on many languages, probably every language that has been looked at.

He is not just considering English.

Every language utilizes the same hierarchical features. While the languages as they are expressed may demonstrate different linear features.

When Chomsky talks about a "universal grammar" he is using the word "grammar" differently than most people understand the word. He is talking about a universal computational process in the brain that ultimately is the reason language exists. And while the computational process may yield different linear structures the overall hierarchical structures are universal.

Language is unique to humans. It most likely did not evolve slowly. It is not an extension of animal communication. It has hierarchical features that are universal.

Sure.

You seem to be mired in Argumentum as Populum here.

How long and hard Chomsky has worked tells us very little about whether he is right; how much you (or people at large) admire him has exactly nothing to do with whether he is right; how numerous his supporters are likewise is irrelevant to the truth value of anything he claims.

It doesn't take a genius to identify when someone is in error. All genii are human, and all humans get things wrong occasionally.

All it takes to identify an error is the ability to spot an inconsistency between a claim and what is logically possible.

If Chomsky's position is correct, then it can be supported without the constant insistence on how wonderful and knowledgeable he is. That there appears to be little substance to your defence of his position other than your insistence that he is too good at what he does to possibly make an error, sets my skepticism alarms ringing.

What specific evidence are you asking for?

Every sentence supports Chomsky's position.

It is not hard at all to see that human language has characteristics no system of animal communication has, like the ability to generate infinite expressions. Animal communication is finite.

It is not hard to know that the majority of language use is in our thoughts, not our spoken words.

It is not hard to understand that this thinking in language occurs "reflexively".

Since you have little of substance to say I have trouble understanding your problem here.

No human attribute is truly unique - and that's to be expected given our shared ancestry with all other extant species on the planet. To claim otherwise is to make an extraordinary claim. And extraordinary claims cannot be defended by simply appealing to the genius of he who makes them.

What other animals besides humans have language. Not some form of finite communication, but language.

Please demonstrate to me how little you know about language.

 

[bilby]

Sure.

You seem to be mired in Argumentum as Populum here.

How long and hard Chomsky has worked tells us very little about whether he is right; how much you (or people at large) admire him has exactly nothing to do with whether he is right; how numerous his supporters are likewise is irrelevant to the truth value of anything he claims.

It doesn't take a genius to identify when someone is in error. All genii are human, and all humans get things wrong occasionally.

All it takes to identify an error is the ability to spot an inconsistency between a claim and what is logically possible.

If Chomsky's position is correct, then it can be supported without the constant insistence on how wonderful and knowledgeable he is. That there appears to be little substance to your defence of his position other than your insistence that he is too good at what he does to possibly make an error, sets my skepticism alarms ringing.

No human attribute is truly unique - and that's to be expected given our shared ancestry with all other extant species on the planet. To claim otherwise is to make an extraordinary claim. And extraordinary claims cannot be defended by simply appealing to the genius of he who makes them.

In short, 'Evidence, or STFU'.

What specific evidence are you asking for?

Every sentence supports Chomsky's position.

It is not hard at all to see that human language has characteristics no system of animal communication has, like the ability to generate infinite expressions. Animal communication is finite.

It may not be hard for you to see; but I don't see it at all. I have seen no evidence that non-human animals have finite communication in a way that humans do not. I haven't even seen any proposal for a mechanism by which this claim could be tested. It's pure opinion.

It is not hard to know that the majority of language use is in our thoughts, not our spoken words.

Again, I 'know' no such thing. My thoughts rarely involve language other than as an output.

Imagine the shape of a complex object - you will find that such objects are easy to think about in great detail, but almost impossible to describe in words. Your feelings about how your brain works are not reliable. Brains are easily fooled. It is obvious to most people that dualism is correct. But they are wrong. Having a brain doesn't make you an expert on its working.

It is not hard to understand that this thinking in language occurs "reflexively".

It's not hard to understand that your assertions are valueless in the absence of anything better than 'it's not hard to understand' as evidence.

Since you have nothing of substance to say I have trouble understanding your problem here.

My 'problem' is that you are asserting a claim and appear to think that because it is obvious to you that it is true, it must therefore be both obvious and true for us all, without resort to any actual evidence to support it.

 

[untermensche]

What specific evidence are you asking for?

Every sentence supports Chomsky's position.

It is not hard at all to see that human language has characteristics no system of animal communication has, like the ability to generate infinite expressions. Animal communication is finite.

It may not be hard for you to see; but I don't see it at all. I have seen no evidence that non-human animals have finite communication in a way that humans do not. I haven't even seen any proposal for a mechanism by which this claim could be tested. It's pure opinion.

Have you ever had a dog?

It takes no more than interacting with animals to clearly see their limitations.

But I could (in theory) write infinite statements. In reality I would die and have to stop.

And you could make sense of infinite statements.

This is not a small thing. A process of infinite production and comprehension.

But something for you to think about.

Not something for me to try to shove down your throat.

 

[bilby]

It may not be hard for you to see; but I don't see it at all. I have seen no evidence that non-human animals have finite communication in a way that humans do not. I haven't even seen any proposal for a mechanism by which this claim could be tested. It's pure opinion.

Have you ever had a dog?

It takes no more than interacting with animals to clearly see their limitations.

But I could (in theory) write infinite statements. In reality I would die and have to stop.

And you could make sense of infinite statements.

This is not a small thing. A process of infinite production and comprehension.

But something for you to think about.

Not something for me to try to shove down your throat.

So your 'evidence' is that you have faith that if I think about it for long enough, I will reach the same conclusion you have reached, as handed down from your chosen authority.

Thanks, but if I was going to employ that epistemology, I would have become a theist.

Oh, and I currently have three dogs, and it is clear to me from their interactions with each other and with humans that there are no fundamental differences between them and us. The differences I observe are differences in degree, not differences in character.