How did human language originate?

[fromderinside]

Its just a matter of taking the proper model. Humans such with respect to scent as I mentioned earlier, humans suck compared to Cetaceans when it comes to acoustic localization and humans suck at three dimensional navigation when it comes to most species of avian.

What? No attempt to diminish these capabilities re human language? I haven't even begun to speak of using odor as a language as we are finding ants, the most social of species, coordinate trillions of members in some cases. For instance in Europe one species has collective colony communication from Spain to Austria.

As for language predated tool making you defeat the very premise Chomsky built for his explanation putting tool making in position to be responsible for brain growth. No I agree with the order Chomsky based his claims upon, Tool making preceded language. Perhaps the most recent advance in tool making is mostly due to language. I suspect grammars became a thing around 150 to 80 million years ago while modern human predecessors were locked into a coastal life.

The requirements of complex tool making and the expansion of human social systems into larger groups were the drivers and recipients of the benefits of modern human language development.

 

[lpetrich]

Museum of Anthropology, College of Arts and Science, University of Missouri

Oldowan: ~2.5 to 1.2 million years ago -- Homo habilis, Australopithecus garhi
Acheulean: ~1.6 million to 200,000 years ago -- Homo erectus
Mousterian: ~200,000 to 40,000 years ago -- Homo neanderthalensis

So our predecessor species had some notable toolmaking ability, and this is judging from the more fossilizable sorts of tools.

-

Back to the origin of language. The singing theory is nice because it does not require Chomskyan quasi-creationist all-at-once origin. But what might be a good pathway from no-semantics singing to language?

I think that the first step is words. These are sound sequences that represent distinct entities or kinds of entities, along with qualities, actions, locations, and the like. Once one does that, the next step is conjunction, making several words that are to be interpreted as a group. One may start off with only two words, but once one starts making more than two words, it's should be easy to make it open-ended, thus the sort of infinity that Noam Chomsky talks about. Instead of having separate abilities to parse "A, B", "A, B, C", etc., one can do "A, ..." where the ... is for continuation.

Expressed in Backus-Naur Form, one would start off with
<phrase> ::= <word> (and) <word>

For longer phrases, one might go for something like
<phrase> ::= <word> (and) <word> | <word> (and) <word> (and) <word> | <word> (and) <word> (and) <word> (and) <word>

But it would be easier to do something like
<phrase> ::= <word> | <phrase> (and) <word>

Thus, one can do infinity while doing very little grammar.

 

[untermensche]

Its just a matter of taking the proper model. Humans such with respect to scent as I mentioned earlier, humans suck compared to Cetaceans when it comes to acoustic localization and humans suck at three dimensional navigation when it comes to most species of avian.

What? No attempt to diminish these capabilities re human language? I haven't even begun to speak of using odor as a language as we are finding ants, the most social of species, coordinate trillions of members in some cases. For instance in Europe one species has collective colony communication from Spain to Austria.

As for language predated tool making you defeat the very premise Chomsky built for his explanation putting tool making in position to be responsible for brain growth. No I agree with the order Chomsky based his claims upon, Tool making preceded language. Perhaps the most recent advance in tool making is mostly due to language. I suspect grammars became a thing around 150 to 80 million years ago while modern human predecessors were locked into a coastal life.

The requirements of complex tool making and the expansion of human social systems into larger groups were the drivers and recipients of the benefits of modern human language development.

You're continuing to conflate communication with the human language capacity.

Yes the human language capacity can be used for communication.

But as you say, so can the pheromones of ants.

Humans can use sign "language" for communication. The use of gestures for very precise communication.

The use of spoken language for communication is a side consequence. Like the use of the arms for signing is a side consequence.

The language capacity is a capacity to order thoughts in a way that creates a more expanded ability of expression and comprehension in the thinker. It is a potential though. No specific thought comes from the genes. Some drives, like the sex drive do.

Spoken words can be used to communicate because humans or their ancestor were already using sound for communication so the systems to do this were already in place.

What was missing was a way to order the words that were already being used in a way that could create an extended meaning beyond a simple label. Use of words to convey action and quality and many other things.

But the ordering of our expressions when you look at it is closely is hierarchical. Our innate sense of comprehension is hierarchical, not linear.

The ordering of the underlying universal grammar is not linear.

Further evidence that spoken words, that must be linear are not the cause.

 

[untermensche]

Museum of Anthropology, College of Arts and Science, University of Missouri

Oldowan: ~2.5 to 1.2 million years ago -- Homo habilis, Australopithecus garhi
Acheulean: ~1.6 million to 200,000 years ago -- Homo erectus
Mousterian: ~200,000 to 40,000 years ago -- Homo neanderthalensis

So our predecessor species had some notable toolmaking ability, and this is judging from the more fossilizable sorts of tools.

-

Back to the origin of language. The singing theory is nice because it does not require Chomskyan quasi-creationist all-at-once origin. But what might be a good pathway from no-semantics singing to language?

I think that the first step is words. These are sound sequences that represent distinct entities or kinds of entities, along with qualities, actions, locations, and the like. Once one does that, the next step is conjunction, making several words that are to be interpreted as a group. One may start off with only two words, but once one starts making more than two words, it's should be easy to make it open-ended, thus the sort of infinity that Noam Chomsky talks about. Instead of having separate abilities to parse "A, B", "A, B, C", etc., one can do "A, ..." where the ... is for continuation.

Expressed in Backus-Naur Form, one would start off with
<phrase> ::= <word> (and) <word>

For longer phrases, one might go for something like
<phrase> ::= <word> (and) <word> | <word> (and) <word> (and) <word> | <word> (and) <word> (and) <word> (and) <word>

But it would be easier to do something like
<phrase> ::= <word> | <phrase> (and) <word>

Thus, one can do infinity while doing very little grammar.

But humans have a very specific underlying grammar.

Chomsky can go on and on all day about the hierarchical nature of the phrases that make sense to us vs the phrases that do not.

No external event will create such a hierarchical system.

Since external events, like spoken words, must be entirely linear.

 

[lpetrich]

(on conjunction as a starting point for grammar)
Expressed in Backus-Naur Form, one would start off with
<phrase> ::= <word> (and) <word>

For longer phrases, one might go for something like
<phrase> ::= <word> (and) <word> | <word> (and) <word> (and) <word> | <word> (and) <word> (and) <word> (and) <word>

But it would be easier to do something like
<phrase> ::= <word> | <phrase> (and) <word>

Thus, one can do infinity while doing very little grammar.

But humans have a very specific underlying grammar.

Chomsky can go on and on all day about the hierarchical nature of the phrases that make sense to us vs the phrases that do not.

No external event will create such a hierarchical system.

Since external events, like spoken words, must be entirely linear.

Now it's hierarchy.

There are oodles of structural hierarchies that we can discover in our environment, and not just in things that we make. Consider our bodies, to name just one example. So if one wants to model our environment, one must include hierarchies in one's modeling. So it's something that can be used in language.

 

[untermensche]

But humans have a very specific underlying grammar.

Chomsky can go on and on all day about the hierarchical nature of the phrases that make sense to us vs the phrases that do not.

No external event will create such a hierarchical system.

Since external events, like spoken words, must be entirely linear.

Now it's hierarchy.

There are oodles of structural hierarchies that we can discover in our environment, and not just in things that we make. Consider our bodies, to name just one example. So if one wants to model our environment, one must include hierarchies in one's modeling. So it's something that can be used in language.

Now?

There is no evidence it ever was anything else. The human language capacity does not vary by group. It only varies by individual. That means the capacity is universal. It means it has not changed since it arose.

If there are other hierarchies similar to the underlying human language capacity that is not an argument against the inherent hierarchical nature of the capacity.

But, once you say the capacity is hierarchical you exclude spoken language, which is linear, as a causal force. A linear presentation will not cause a hierarchical understanding.

But a hierarchical understanding could be constrained by the nature of spoken language to act in a linear manner.

But because it is a hierarchical understanding not every linear order is available or as easily understood. Or understood at all.

And it is in these ungrammatical, or not clearly understood phrases, that the underlying hierarchical nature of the language capacity can be seen.

You can go to YouTube and listen to Chomsky give example after example of these phrases.

 

[fromderinside]

There were thoughts before there was language capacity. Seems most species do pretty well getting by. So, methinks you choose to speak of language as a capacity to effectively get stuff done. I agree. Then how do you explain how other living things without language effectively get things done.

Just one more methinks. Methinks you are using language as a crutch to differentiate humans from other living beings based on effectively getting things done without thinking about how other beings effectively get things done. I prefer to concentrate on communication and language as a human mechanism for communicating. And yes language helps humans get things done effectively.

 

[lpetrich]

But a hierarchical understanding could be constrained by the nature of spoken language to act in a linear manner.

But because it is a hierarchical understanding not every linear order is available or as easily understood. Or understood at all.

And it is in these ungrammatical, or not clearly understood phrases, that the underlying hierarchical nature of the language capacity can be seen.

You can go to YouTube and listen to Chomsky give example after example of these phrases.

However, I'd posted earlier on:
Experimental evidence for compositional syntax in bird calls : Nature Communications
Songs to syntax: the linguistics of birdsong
The Syntax of Birdsong
FIRST DOCUMENTATION OF COMBINATORIAL SONG SYNTAX IN A SUBOSCINE PASSERINE SPECIES - viewcontent.cgi
First evidence that birds tweet using grammar | New Scientist
Songbirds possess the spontaneous ability to discriminate syntactic rules : Nature Neuroscience : Nature Research
Birdsong neurolinguistics: songbird context-free grammar claim is premature
Whale song reveals sophisticated language skills | New Scientist
Information entropy of humpback whale songs

 

[untermensche]

Chomsky talks all the time about the similarity (in sound) between human language and the sounds of some birds and whales.

Hard to compare grammar in bird sounds though.

Human grammar is more than a repetition of sound.

Impossible to talk about meaning.

But Chomsky uses these as examples of something like the human language capacity arising randomly in other species.

No other primates create sounds in the ways humans, and some birds and whales, do.

 

[fromderinside]

Personal report, not science. My dog barked a varied bark. It sounded a bit like 'love you', not a bark but an attempt to communicate it seemed to me. I said 'what did you say' and Land Shark, our white mixed breed, repeated what sounded like 'I love you'. Whenever I brought her food or water after that she ran through a series of "I love you"s. She started it. Were we communicating? One obviously can't destroy it by saying "its not possible" because I heard it and most people have heard dogs make complex barks, growls, or whatever.

So she's not physically equipped, but shi may be smart enough to adapt what she has to sound like "I love you". BTW, I believe I'm every bit as good an observer of such as is Chomsky.

In your court.

 

[untermensche]

Dog language:

"Woof"..........six hours later "Woof".......a day later "Woof"......four minutes later "Woof, woof, woof".....3 hours later "Woof"....and so on.

If one can't tell the difference then one should not be discussing this.

 

[Juma]

Dog language:

"Woof"..........six hours later "Woof".......a day later "Woof"......four minutes later "Woof, woof, woof".....3 hours later "Woof"....and so on.

If one can't tell the difference then one should not be discussing this.

Not "one", "you"!
If you cant tell the difference then you should not ..

You have a very nasty way of assuming that if you dont know something then nobody else no anything.

 

[untermensche]

There were thoughts before there was language capacity. Seems most species do pretty well getting by. So, methinks you choose to speak of language as a capacity to effectively get stuff done. I agree. Then how do you explain how other living things without language effectively get things done.

It's a way to get things done differently.

A way to get many more things done.

The language capacity did not change the world and the means at hand for survival.

It just enabled better means to be developed and for thought to expand far beyond simply figuring out how to kill something to eat.

Methinks you are using language as a crutch to differentiate humans from other living beings based on effectively getting things done without thinking about how other beings effectively get things done.

Contemplating how a universe might arise is not getting anything done.

Thought for the sake of thought. That is what the language capacity allowed.

But the capacity is tied to the expressions, what we call "languages" which are all related hierarchically.

Humans are all using similar hierarchical "rules" when constructing their languages.

The "rules" are the language capacity.

If words are not expressed in the orders defined by the "rules" then comprehension is very difficult if not impossible.

The reason we can understand the expressions of others is because they are expressed using the same "rules" we have built in for comprehension.

 

[untermensche]

Dog language:

"Woof"..........six hours later "Woof".......a day later "Woof"......four minutes later "Woof, woof, woof".....3 hours later "Woof"....and so on.

If one can't tell the difference then one should not be discussing this.

Not "one", "you"!
If you cant tell the difference then you should not ..

You have a very nasty way of assuming that if you dont know something then nobody else no anything.

Not true.

I am very teachable.

But one must actually have something to teach.

Look at post #328. All those studies are about birds and whales. None about monkeys or lemurs or dogs.

Because there are very few animals that make sounds like humans do.

Some birds and whales. Nothing very closely related to us.

 

[fromderinside]

This is niggling. I'm siding with post hoc nature of rules for UG. To get an idea of what I mean read the criticisms section of  Universal grammar

 

[untermensche]

This is niggling. I'm siding with post hoc nature of rules for UG. To get an idea of what I mean read the criticisms section of  Universal grammar

The criticism is extraordinarily weak.

Since so many "languages" exist and when looked at closely the same "rules" emerge from all.

There is some variation on themes but there is no reason this should be so.

Even if it is looked at the only way "languages" can be looked at.

By looking at them "after the fact".

There have been studies in language creation.

Starting with random nonsense and asking people to remember it.

What slowly emerges are the underlying "rules".

Because without these "rules" it just does not make sense to us and we cannot remember it.

 

[fromderinside]

Just put 'after the fact' in all your points and you should have gotten my point.

Let me be blunt here. Post hoc is not part of scientific method.

 

[untermensche]

Just put 'after the fact' in all your points and you should have gotten my point.

Let me be blunbt here. Post hoc is not part of scientific method.

These studies in "language creation" are not after the fact.

You're desperately trying to find any excuse to not even look at something.

You lack a true scientific intellect.

 

[fromderinside]

No the studies aren't after the fact. The analyses in the studies leading to markers are ad hoc, after the fact, apparent, based on face value, they are not based on determined value. You've just read example of real scientific intellect. One does not build theory on correlation based at personal examination. IOW where is the experiment, the operations, the limitations, the controls?

 

[Juma]

Not "one", "you"!
If you cant tell the difference then you should not ..

You have a very nasty way of assuming that if you dont know something then nobody else no anything.

Not true.

I am very teachable.

But one must actually have something to teach.

Look at post #328. All those studies are about birds and whales. None about monkeys or lemurs or dogs.

Because there are very few animals that make sounds like humans do.

Some birds and whales. Nothing very closely related to us.

so what? That only shows that some animals have more control of sound producibg organs. It says very little on their language capabilities.