How did human language originate?

[Malintent]

The simple answer to your question is that under pressure our genes changed.

Yes of course. But that is bloody obvious.

It's like answering someone who is asking "how did you walk here?" with "on my feet".
What we want to know is the way evolution took.

It sounds from your post that you were looking for more like, "describe the reasoning in calculation behind the length and interval of each step you took to get here"

 

[fromderinside]

Wikipedia has a lot of detail on  Animal communication and  Animal language. Outside of animal language, there has been a lot of research on  Animal cognition. That research has included research on perception, attention, concepts and categories, memory, spatial cognition, timing, tool and weapon use, reasoning and problem solving, cognitive bias, language, insight, numeracy, intelligence, theory of mind ( Theory of mind in animals), and consciousness ( Mirror test, List of Animals That Have Passed the Mirror Test - Animal Cognition).

I find the mirror test most interesting. It's a test of whether one acts like one recognizes oneself in a mirror.

In our species, we typically become capable of that at around 18 to 24 months old. In Alzheimer's disease, a disease where we gradually lose mental capability, we lose that ability in the late 2nd to 3rd stage of the usual 3 stages of it.

Of our closest relatives, the great apes (chimps, gorillas, orangutans) have it, though not necessarily very consistently, but lesser apes (gibbons), Old World monkeys (macaques, baboons, colobus monkey), and New World monkeys (capuchin monkey), do not.

Elephants have it, as do the two most studied delphinids: the bottlenose dolphin and the killer whale.

Eurasian magpies (Pica pica) have it, but other corvids tested (New Caledonian crow, jackdaw) don't.

The one that makes me think is the octopus which has it. Similarly with gene group FOXP2 there are huge gaps and existence along several lines which seem to have acquired it from somewhere other than mutation. Humans are an interesting bunch.

 

[Speakpigeon]

How did human language originate?

In my opinion, human languages come essentially from animal communication, which of course includes singing, i.e. humans would initially have used at least broadly the same register of sounds as apes do. Then I think some humans, like apes before them, evolved towards being more socially integrated and cooperative. This would have made language a great advantage as soon as it started to appear. Then all social activities would have been relevant to the development of language: hunting, eating, grooming, mating, childcare, fighting off predators, making tools etc.

I think it would be very difficult to prove that one of those activities has been more essential than the others. I fail to see why not all activities would come to affect the development of language to the extent that they would have been relevant to survival and reproduction. Perhaps tool-making was important in that it may have had a structural effect on the development of language but the emotional effect of interpersonal relations would have been critical too. And so on.

I agree that language as a thinking process may have been a crucial factor but I think it would have gone nowhere fast without the driving force and input of social interactions. The ability to use language to produce more elaborate toughts would have been an advantage. Differential memorisation could also have played a part in this juncture. More elaborate thinking would immediately have helped make for larger tribes, which would in turn have helped the language ability to be preserved and to develop further.

Ultimately, you need a genetic event to provide the organic basis for the function, and for language, it's probably a group of such events, perhaps quite appart from each other in time and location. And you also need the opportunity to turn the accident into an advantage, and again it may have been a long and convoluted evolution in this respect, perhaps across continents and prehistoric periods.

That doesn't mean that grammar in itself would have required many genetic events. But language is not just grammar. it's also the ability to memorise utterences, the ability to produce increasingly complex vocalisations required, the ability to think in linguistic form, the ability to form elaborate thoughts etc. Possibly also some evolution in terms of the emotional effect of languistic communication. Not to mention the ability to write your language.

And then television and the Internet. Fascinating stuff!
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

And now it appears some monkeys can produce vowels. They have the kind of larynx (or wathever) necessary to do it.
EB

 

[ronburgundy]

It seems that the OP asks something the encompasses 3 very different questions that may have different answers.

One question about the creation of vocal sounds to refer to particular objects or events that we've experienced via our senses. The second is about the emergence of cognition that allows us to represent abstract concepts that go beyond specific objects and events that have been experienced to distill their essence. Such abstract concepts are neccessary for us to be able to apply the same word to newly encountered instance of categories, and to use words that will evoke the same concept in the mind of others, despite not sharing identical past experiences with the same instances of the objects. The third question is the emergence of cognition that leads to creation of syntactic structures that are important for communicating more complex ideas about the relationships between various objects.

 

[Malintent]

This took me a while to eventually find... so you better look at it! I heard about this from a documentary I couldn't for the life of me remember the details around... I finally found a reference to it (it was on the show "Horizon"). It is about the evolution of language. Very interesting and on point:

http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/lec/the-“alien-language”-experiment/

Scholarly version: http://www.pnas.org/content/105/31/10681.abstract

Abstract

We introduce an experimental paradigm for studying the cumulative cultural evolution of language. In doing so we provide the first experimental validation for the idea that cultural transmission can lead to the appearance of design without a designer. Our experiments involve the iterated learning of artificial languages by human participants. We show that languages transmitted culturally evolve in such a way as to maximize their own transmissibility: over time, the languages in our experiments become easier to learn and increasingly structured. Furthermore, this structure emerges purely as a consequence of the transmission of language over generations, without any intentional design on the part of individual language learners. Previous computational and mathematical models suggest that iterated learning provides an explanation for the structure of human language and link particular aspects of linguistic structure with particular constraints acting on language during its transmission. The experimental work presented here shows that the predictions of these models, and models of cultural evolution more generally, can be tested in the laboratory.

 

[J842P]

Jeez, that's a terrible headline. It is not possible for human language to have evolved form birdsong. The MRCA between birds and humans existed long before birdsong.

 

[untermensche]

This took me a while to eventually find... so you better look at it! I heard about this from a documentary I couldn't for the life of me remember the details around... I finally found a reference to it (it was on the show "Horizon"). It is about the evolution of language. Very interesting and on point:

http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/lec/the-“alien-language”-experiment/

Scholarly version: http://www.pnas.org/content/105/31/10681.abstract

Abstract

We introduce an experimental paradigm for studying the cumulative cultural evolution of language. In doing so we provide the first experimental validation for the idea that cultural transmission can lead to the appearance of design without a designer. Our experiments involve the iterated learning of artificial languages by human participants. We show that languages transmitted culturally evolve in such a way as to maximize their own transmissibility: over time, the languages in our experiments become easier to learn and increasingly structured. Furthermore, this structure emerges purely as a consequence of the transmission of language over generations, without any intentional design on the part of individual language learners. Previous computational and mathematical models suggest that iterated learning provides an explanation for the structure of human language and link particular aspects of linguistic structure with particular constraints acting on language during its transmission. The experimental work presented here shows that the predictions of these models, and models of cultural evolution more generally, can be tested in the laboratory.

Chomsky rips this paper to shreds.

Begins at 1:30:30

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Kind of wonder when the first curse word was invented.

 

[bilby]

Kind of wonder when the first curse word was invented.

About 0.2 seconds after the first stone tool accidentally hit the first thumb.

 

[lpetrich]

Jeez, that's a terrible headline. It is not possible for human language to have evolved form birdsong. The MRCA between birds and humans existed long before birdsong.

That is certainly correct, but it does not rule out convergent evolution, the evolution of the same or similar features multiple times. So instead of human language evolving from birdsong itself, it evolved from some birdsong-like phase.

As to bird phylogeny, I've found some recent work on that subject: Ornithologists Publish Most Comprehensive Avian Tree of Life | Biology | Sci-News.com, referring to A comprehensive phylogeny of birds (Aves) using targeted next-generation DNA sequencing : Nature : Nature Research. That work successfully resolves a clade of birds that has resisted such efforts: Neoaves. Overall bird phylogeny:
(Ratites, (Galloanserae, Neoaves))
Ratites = ostrich and similar birds
Galloanserae = Galliformes (chicken, pheasants, ...) and Anseriformes (ducks, geese, ...)
Neoaves = all the rest, and very difficult to resolve beyond traditionally-recognized taxa. This new work resolves them.

Songbirds are in the taxon Passeriformes, along with some birds that are not so great at singing. Some of their closest relatives are the parrots (Psittaciformes), well-known for their vocal abilities. So could something like birdsong have evolved in their shared ancestor?

 

[untermensche]

...That is certainly correct, but it does not rule out convergent evolution, the evolution of the same or similar features multiple times...

Yes.

But human language does not evolve. Modern language is not some evolutionary advancement from language thousands of years ago. It is just a different language.

The human language capacity is something that arrived via evolution though. It has not changed in tens of thousands of years. All human groups have the same language capacity. Any child that can acquire one language can acquire any language. No matter where they are born or who their parents are. There are only individual differences in language acquisition, not group differences, meaning evolutionary change has not occurred across the species in terms of language acquisition.

 

[fromderinside]

Wow. What a concept, the nature of culture basically drives the nature of language acquisisiton.

If we generalize our evolutionary approach to other aspects of cultural evolution and human development, then similar challenges will also lie ahead here in identifying specific constraints and explaining how these capture cross-cultural patterns in development. Importantly, this perspective on human evolution and development does not construe the mind as a blank slate; far from it: We need innate constraints to explain the various patterns observed across phylogenetic and ontogenetic time. Instead, we have argued that there are many innate constraints that shape language and other culturally based human skills but that these are unlikely to be domain specific. Thus, as Liz Bates put it so elegantly (cited in Goldberg, 2008), “It’s not a question of Nature versus Nurture; the question is about the Nature of Nature.”

from: Language Acquisition Meets Language Evolution

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01049.x/full

Enjoy the read.

Or evolution is like building a Swiss army knife.

 

[untermensche]

Man it is hard to read that shit.

It isn't science. It is a bunch of fairy tales.

There are no group differences in language acquisition.

A person with even a little knowledge of evolution should be able to understand what that means.

The ability to acquire a language has not changed since humans first acquired the ability.

Some 100 to 200 thousand years ago.

All it takes to demonstrate that the language ability evolves is to show group differences in language acquisition.

Do you have any real science?

 

[Bomb#20]

There are no group differences in language acquisition.

A person with even a little knowledge of evolution should be able to understand what that means.

The ability to acquire a language has not changed since humans first acquired the ability.

Some 100 to 200 thousand years ago.

All it takes to demonstrate that the language ability evolves is to show group differences in language acquisition.

Do you have any real science?

Define "group".

 

[untermensche]

There are no group differences in language acquisition.

A person with even a little knowledge of evolution should be able to understand what that means.

The ability to acquire a language has not changed since humans first acquired the ability.

Some 100 to 200 thousand years ago.

All it takes to demonstrate that the language ability evolves is to show group differences in language acquisition.

Do you have any real science?

Define "group".

What that Wikipedia reference describes are individual differences in language acquisition. Twins are genetic "individuals". And it clearly describes several problems, not one.

Human geniuses arise as well as people with difficulties. What does that prove about language acquisition?

For the purposes here a human group would be just a random selection.

Randomly pick a thousand people from anywhere in the world.

Then randomly pick another thousand.

You will not find a statistically significant difference in language acquisition between the two groups. Almost all will have an incredibly complex language system. Some will have an uncanny ability to learn "foreign" languages, and some will have difficulties dealing with one.

Individual differences will exist, not group differences.

And in terms of evolution, if there are no group differences then the ability to acquire language is something that has not changed since it arose. Probably a genetic mutation in one individual that could be successfully transmitted to offspring. And the ability gave those individuals such a survival advantage that eventually those without the mutation disappeared. No slow evolutionary change would occur universally in all members of the species, especially when many human genetic lines were isolated for long periods of time.

Language acquisition is not like skin color.

 

[fromderinside]

If it is shown that cultural evolution and language evolution are  covariate then one has to unscramble them. I recommend one way is to group by culture and to group by language acquisition. One may treat the variables language within culture or culture within language. Since, argurably, evolution of culture precedes language, I, using your example, would put 100 in about 5 to seven cultural groups then multiply the random assignment of language acquisition individuals to achieve equal representation in each cultural group. Wallah. I believe, in effect through analysis of literature and theory, I believe that is what the authors did in the present case. I shit you not.

For your addited enjoyment: Language as shaped by the brain http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/168484/1/download10.pdf

As a passing shot the time for communist inspired, in this case, blank slate liberalism derived from communist lysenko-like thinking has past. Do not have a conclusion for which one finds a way to justify what one sees (believes).

 

[untermensche]

If it is shown that cultural evolution and language evolution are  covariate then one has to unscramble them. I recommend one way is to group by culture and to group by language acquisition. One may treat the variables language within culture or culture within language. Since, argurably, evolution of culture precedes language, I, using your example, would put 100 in about 5 to seven cultural groups then multiply the random assignment of language acquisition individuals to achieve equal representation in each cultural group. Wallah. I believe, in effect through analysis of literature and theory, I believe that is what the authors did in the present case. I shit you not.

For your addited enjoyment: Language as shaped by the brain http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/168484/1/download10.pdf

As a passing shot the time for communist inspired, in this case, blank slate liberalism derived from communist lysenko-like thinking has past. Do not have a conclusion for which one finds a way to justify what one sees (believes).

Cultural change and growth, not evolution, arises over time due to the abilities of humans to transmit information with language, especially written language.

 

[untermensche]

Thus, the scene that the human world presented from around 130,000 years ago to sometime before 50,000 years ago was this: Northern Europe, Siberia, Australia, and the whole New World were still empty of people. In the rest of Europe and western Asia lived the Neanderthals; in Africa, people increasingly like us in anatomy; and in eastern Asia, people unlike either the Neanderthals or Africans but known from only a few bones. All three populations were still primitive in their tools, behavior, and limited innovativeness. The stage was set for the Great Leap Forward. Which among these three contemporary populations would take that leap?

The evidence for an abrupt change—at last!—is clearest in France and Spain, in the late Ice Age around 35,000 years ago. Where there had previously been Neanderthals, anatomically fully modern people (often known as Cro-Magnons, from the French site where their bones were first identified) now appear. Were one of those gentlemen or ladies to stroll down the Champs Elysées in modern attire, he or she would not stand out from the Parisian crowds in any way. Cro-Magnons’ tools are as dramatic as their skeletons; they are far more diverse in form and obvious in function than any in the earlier archeological record. They suggest that modern anatomy had at last been joined by modern innovative behavior.

http://wps.pearsoncustom.com/wps/media/objects/6904/7070246/SOC250_Ch01.pdf

While Jared Diamond does not share the view of Chomsky that this "Great Leap Forward" was the sudden emergence of the human language capacity, it is clear from the archeological record that "modern innovative behavior" exploded suddenly into existence some 35,000 years ago. Probably a little earlier to allow for migration out of Africa.

But when you combine this "Great Leap Forward" with the fact that the ability of humans to acquire language does not vary by group, a logical conclusion is this "Great Leap Forward" occurred because humans (Cro-Magnons) suddenly developed the ability to acquire language.

Then when you actually look at the structure of language you see that language actually works in a hierarchical fashion despite it having to be expressed in a linear fashion.

Since human consciousness has no access to this "hierarchical structure" of language, it is something that works behind the scene, it is not something that could slowly evolve due to exposure.

All these factors leads one in the direction to conclude that the ability to acquire language arose suddenly and only in humans.

Other species, song birds, whales, may have vocalizations that resemble human language but neither are human language.

But the fact that song birds and whales do have language-like capacities leads one to the conclusion that this is something that happens to highly complex brains now and then.

 

[Bomb#20]

Define "group".

What that Wikipedia reference describes are individual differences in language acquisition. Twins are genetic "individuals". And it clearly describes several problems, not one.

Human geniuses arise as well as people with difficulties. What does that prove about language acquisition?

For the purposes here a human group would be just a random selection.

Randomly pick a thousand people from anywhere in the world.

Then randomly pick another thousand.

You will not find a statistically significant difference in language acquisition between the two groups. Almost all will have an incredibly complex language system. Some will have an uncanny ability to learn "foreign" languages, and some will have difficulties dealing with one.

Individual differences will exist, not group differences.

And in terms of evolution, if there are no group differences then the ability to acquire language is something that has not changed since it arose. Probably a genetic mutation in one individual that could be successfully transmitted to offspring. And the ability gave those individuals such a survival advantage that eventually those without the mutation disappeared. No slow evolutionary change would occur universally in all members of the species, especially when many human genetic lines were isolated for long periods of time.

Language acquisition is not like skin color.

Randomly pick a thousand people from anywhere in the world. Then randomly pick another thousand. You will not find a statistically significant difference in skin color between the two groups. All you'll find is two groups each of which contains nearly the full range of human skin color in roughly representative proportions. So that's not a definition of "group" that will support your conclusion that language acquisition is not like skin color.

Did you mean, perhaps, randomly pick some place in the world, randomly pick a thousand people all from that place, then randomly pick a different place in the world and randomly pick a thousand people all from the second place? I.e., by "group", you mean the people of some local geographic region that contains at least 1000 people?