How did human language originate?

[untermensche]

"What could possibly prevent it?" and "What possible limit to the amount of sentences you could create or comprehend exists?" are not observations of the real world that logically imply infinite different languages could arise....

You can drag some jackasses to water but you can't force them to drink.

You refuse to support your position and can't even see the underlying logic of mine. Systems that constantly deal with new information do not suddenly stop for no reason.

You are worthless here and and not worth my time.

 

[Juma]

[Q
Is it possible for you to suddenly stop comprehending sentences you have never heard before?

Of course there is. There is a limit of your knowledge. You need knowledge of the subject to understand the sentence.

 

[lpetrich]

Unlike the very limited "vocabulary" of animals that rely on animal communication and do not have human language.

What do you call bird songs and whale songs?


Experimental evidence for compositional syntax in bird calls : Nature Communications

Human language can express limitless meanings from a finite set of words based on combinatorial rules (i.e., compositional syntax). Although animal vocalizations may be comprised of different basic elements (notes), it remains unknown whether compositional syntax has also evolved in animals. Here we report the first experimental evidence for compositional syntax in a wild animal species, the Japanese great tit (Parus minor). Tits have over ten different notes in their vocal repertoire and use them either solely or in combination with other notes. Experiments reveal that receivers extract different meanings from ‘ABC’ (scan for danger) and ‘D’ notes (approach the caller), and a compound meaning from ‘ABC–D’ combinations. However, receivers rarely scan and approach when note ordering is artificially reversed (‘D–ABC’). Thus, compositional syntax is not unique to human language but may have evolved independently in animals as one of the basic mechanisms of information transmission.

Songs to syntax: the linguistics of birdsong

Unlike our primate cousins, many species of bird share with humans a capacity for vocal learning, a crucial factor in speech acquisition. There are striking behavioural, neural and genetic similarities between auditory-vocal learning in birds and human infants. Recently, the linguistic parallels between birdsong and spoken language have begun to be investigated. Although both birdsong and human language are hierarchically organized according to particular syntactic constraints, birdsong structure is best characterized as ‘phonological syntax’, resembling aspects of human sound structure. Crucially, birdsong lacks semantics and words. Formal language and linguistic analysis remains essential for the proper characterization of birdsong as a model system for human speech and language, and for the study of the brain and cognition evolution.

The Syntax of Birdsong -- described as only having “phonological syntax” without semantic content. Furthemore, their syntax seems rather limited to "regular grammars", what can be generated by a finite-state automaton, a system with an internal state and transition rules for getting other possible internal states. Context-free grammars may need pushdown automata, a finite-state automaton with a stack memory. Context-sensitive grammars may need linear-bounded automata, a FSA with an amount of memory proportional to the input size. Formal grammars in general may need full-scale Turing machines, FSA's with an arbitrary amount of memory ( Chomsky hierarchy).

The formal Complexity of Natural Languages - print_Folien_Riga_complexity_new.pdf -- argues that natural languages are at least mildly context-sensitive ( Mildly context-sensitive grammar formalism).

 

[lpetrich]

FIRST DOCUMENTATION OF COMBINATORIAL SONG SYNTAX IN A SUBOSCINE PASSERINE SPECIES - viewcontent.cgi

Birds with songs having two or more acoustically distinct elements can arrange them either rigidly (i.e., in the same sequence) or flexibly. Flexible song syntax can be achieved either by varying the number of repetitions of elements or by combining elements in different ways. Combinatorial syntax has been documented only in the songs of oscine passerines and in one nonpasserine, but not in the suboscine passerines. Dawn and day songs of a tyrant flycatcher, the Flammulated Attila (Attila flammulatus), were recorded in Costa Rica. Flexible syntax was noted in both dawn and day song. Attilas not only varied the number of repetitions of their song elements but also combined elements in various ways. This appears to be the first reported case of The Pascombinatorial song syntax in a suboscine species.

Passeriformes or perching birds, divided into oscines (well-developed vocal apparatus: the songbirds) and suboscines (not as well developed).

 

[Malintent]

When does your vision stop functioning and you no longer comprehend you are seeing a face?

When the ambient light levels drop below a certain threshold such that the image cannot be resolved by our LIMITED vision
OR
When the image size drops below a certain resolution such that the image cannot be resolved by our LIMITED vision.
OR
When the distance to the image increases above a certain resolution such that the image cannot be resolved by our LIMITED vision.
OR
When the frequency of ambient light increases above a certain threshold such that the image cannot be resolved by our LIMITED vision.
OR
When the frequency of ambient light decreases below a certain threshold such that the image cannot be resolved by our LIMITED vision.

 

[fromderinside]

Since very few situations are new your argument falls into a pile of logical dung.

Face it you are using a personal definition of unique. That a person consistently sees something when viewing a situation is merely consistent behavior. Situations one can encounter may be large but what one does is merely consistent.

 

[JonA]

Language is the natural result of two human brains attempting to communicate.

 

[Bronzeage]

Language is the natural result of two human brains attempting to communicate.

That's pretty much it.

We're looking at the wrong question. It's not how, but why. If all the food in the world was no more than 6 feet off the ground, would we have giraffes?

Human language originated as humans originated. While the line that led to giraffes was getting taller and the line that led to apes was getting bigger, we were getting smarter. For some reason, it was to our advantage to become the second or third smallest primate, become relatively hairless, and compared to our simian cousins, not that physically impressive. While the rest of the animal world was growing physically specialized, we became mentally specialized.

It's a rough world out there. Leopards are a bitch. They just run up and grab the smallest person in the bunch and drag him away in the dark. No future at all in that. Human survival, even to this day, has always depended upon the cooperation within a group. Other animals have family groups and some of them have cooperative social structure, but none are as complicated as human society. In order to cooperate, we have to communicate. Whether it's blinking our eyes, making shapes with our fingers, or talking, we can make a language our of any controlled motion.

Animal calls are sufficient for animal needs. Once you've covered "get away from me," "where are you," and "watch out for the leopard," there's not a lot animals have to say to each other. What else do they need to tell one another in order to survive another day. It's not that easy for humans. We can't outrun the leopard and we don't really want to leave one of the children behind while we get away.

It is critical to human survival to be able to communicate quickly and clearly about everything in the environment. It is the key to cooperation. The part of the brain that controls the fine motion in the fingers, also controls the fine motion in the tongue. I don't think this is a coincidence. Hand signs accompanied by sounds can be an excellent communication system. It doesn't have to be an all at once development. We've already got use for fingers, tongues and lips. Re-purposing them for something of immediate benefit is an easy move.

One thing that the humans have never faced, at least as a species, is loss of habitat. With our big human brain, and our cooperative groups, any habitat in the world is ours. We live in the desert and above the Arctic Circle. Let a leopard try that.

It's not really a mystery of how we developed language. It developed as we did. It was critical to our survival and without it, there would be no one to talk about it.

 

[fromderinside]

Bronzeage wrote

One thing that the humans have never faced, at least as a species, is loss of habitat. With our big human brain, and our cooperative groups, any habitat in the world is ours. We live in the desert and above the Arctic Circle. Let a leopard try that.

There was that mating population squeeze about 70,000 years ago. I'm putting my money on the consequent ecological release resulting from that event.

 

[Juma]

It's not really a mystery of how we developed language. It developed as we did. It was critical to our survival and without it, there would be no one to talk about it.

Maybe you meant "It's not really a mystery THAT we developed language"?

Cause what you wrote seems like just as big brainfart as "Its no mystery how this clock works, its works as my car engine, it runs"

 

[Bronzeage]

It's not really a mystery of how we developed language. It developed as we did. It was critical to our survival and without it, there would be no one to talk about it.

Maybe you meant "It's not really a mystery THAT we developed language"?

Cause what you wrote seems like just as big brainfart as "Its no mystery how this clock works, its works as my car engine, it runs"

Perhaps my verbal skills have failed me, or perhaps your reading comprehension is lacking. You're fortunate to find me in a patient mood.

Humans are the most cooperative and empathetic species on the planet. Our survival requires close cooperation and efficient communication. Any advantage in cooperation and communication would strengthen the species and increase the chances of survival. It may be a fine point, but an evolutionary advantage is the reason we now have clocks and car engines.

This is as empathetic and cooperative as I feel the situation merits. There's a limit to all things, even if the survival of the species is at stake.

 

[Juma]

Maybe you meant "It's not really a mystery THAT we developed language"?

Cause what you wrote seems like just as big brainfart as "Its no mystery how this clock works, its works as my car engine, it runs"

Perhaps my verbal skills have failed me, or perhaps your reading comprehension is lacking. You're fortunate to find me in a patient mood.

Humans are the most cooperative and empathetic species on the planet. Our survival requires close cooperation and efficient communication. Any advantage in cooperation and communication would strengthen the species and increase the chances of survival. It may be a fine point, but an evolutionary advantage is the reason we now have clocks and car engines.

This is as empathetic and cooperative as I feel the situation merits. There's a limit to all things, even if the survival of the species is at stake.

Why any hint on hard feelings? Dont attack for your errors. This is a discussion forum where errors are meant to be exposed.

The point is:
That there is an evolutionary advantage to something does not answer the question of how it came to be. It really doesnt even answer the "why"-question. It just shows that it is not contradicting evolution.

 

[Bronzeage]

Perhaps my verbal skills have failed me, or perhaps your reading comprehension is lacking. You're fortunate to find me in a patient mood.

Humans are the most cooperative and empathetic species on the planet. Our survival requires close cooperation and efficient communication. Any advantage in cooperation and communication would strengthen the species and increase the chances of survival. It may be a fine point, but an evolutionary advantage is the reason we now have clocks and car engines.

This is as empathetic and cooperative as I feel the situation merits. There's a limit to all things, even if the survival of the species is at stake.

Why any hint on hard feelings? Dont attack for your errors. This is a discussion forum where errors are meant to be exposed.

The point is:
That there is an evolutionary advantage to something does not answer the question of how it came to be. It really doesnt even answer the "why"-question. It just shows that it is not contradicting evolution.

Okay, let's try again. Mammals, especially omnivorous ones, have facial muscles which facilitate biting and chewing. This makes it possible for them to make facial expressions which other mammals can recognize and assign a meaning. Manipulation of the various sounds created by different mouth and tongue positions, increases the expressiveness.

The human branch of the primate line found this more useful for their environment, because it allowed close cooperation between humans and gave them an advantage in a predator filled environment. If you need more how or why, you'll need to introduce some kind of outside influence which wanted humans to talk to one another, or possibly talk to them.

 

[Juma]

Why any hint on hard feelings? Dont attack for your errors. This is a discussion forum where errors are meant to be exposed.

The point is:
That there is an evolutionary advantage to something does not answer the question of how it came to be. It really doesnt even answer the "why"-question. It just shows that it is not contradicting evolution.

Okay, let's try again. Mammals, especially omnivorous ones, have facial muscles which facilitate biting and chewing. This makes it possible for them to make facial expressions which other mammals can recognize and assign a meaning. Manipulation of the various sounds created by different mouth and tongue positions, increases the expressiveness.

The human branch of the primate line found this more useful for their environment, because it allowed close cooperation between humans and gave them an advantage in a predator filled environment. If you need more how or why, you'll need to introduce some kind of outside influence which wanted humans to talk to one another, or possibly talk to them.

How do we recognize and assign meaning?
How do we assign such complex meanings as we can? How has this happened?
What was the actual steps?

You have not provided any of the hows.

 

[fromderinside]

There are clues n what Bronzeage wrote. Tie the clues to history as any interested in understanding person would do and you'll see how the process took place. In this area all we have is clues from history in the form of bones, teeth, social evidence, and genetics. Those conspire to tell a story about what we could do when. From that we can surmise what needed to be in place to do what we did then. From that analysis arises an explanation of how capabilities came about.

The simple answer to your question is that under pressure our genes changed. We run experiments with models designed to reveal how things change with this or that pressure. Why is an eternal philosophical question.

End of either a meaningless bloviation or a very concise description of how things are done in the world of evolution.

 

[lpetrich]

I must say that I'm disappointed in untermensche's lack of explanation of what makes human language "infinite" and animal communication "finite".

Here is a simple example of a formal grammar, complete with a puzzle in it. Let's see who can solve it.

Douglas Hofstadter in his book "Goedel, Escher, Bach" stated in it the  MU puzzle. In it, text strings with letters M, I, and U can be composed from other such strings by applying these string-rewriting rules:

1. xI -> xIU ... MI -> MIU
2. Mx -> Mxx ... MIU -> MIUIU
3. xIIIy -> xUy ... MUIIIU -> MUUU
4. xUUy -> xy ... MUUU -> MUU

Starting with MI, can one make MU?

 

[Juma]

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.

 

[lpetrich]

Returning to the MU puzzle, I must note that the example for the fourth rule is mistaken. It ought to be
MUUU -> MU

The solution:

Show

Let's consider the total number of I's in the string. The first and fourth rules do not change it. The third rule subtracts 3 from it. So we can consider what happens to the number modulo 3 (remainder after dividing by 3). It is either 0 mod 3, 1 mod 3, or 2 mod 3. Now consider the second rule. It does:
0 -> 0
1 -> 2
2 -> 1
all mod 3.

Thus, all four rules only allow 0 -> 0 or (nonzero) -> (nonzero).

So if the number of I's is nonzero mod 3, then it can never become zero. The initial state is MI, with 1 mod 3 I's, and the intended final state is MU, with 0 mod 3 I's. Going from MI to MU is thus not possible under these rules.

 

[lpetrich]

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.

 

[fromderinside]

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

Yes of course. But that is bloody obvious.

Of course. That's why I wrote then second sentence

We run experiments with models designed to reveal how things change with this or that pressure.

Relating Findings in anthropology through models like  Drosophila melanogaster, mice, etc with experiments derived from those anthropological findings have been pretty fruitful yano when we observe gene change.