Writing 391

University of Maryland Global Campus

xxxxxx xxxx

Language is a ubiquitous feature of our lives. As such it may not seem to stand out as a particularly remarkable characteristic of being human, unless one considers what the human animal would be like without the ability to comprehend and use language. In fact, it could be argued that human language is one of the few traits which completely distinguish human behavior from that of other animals, as so much of our success depends upon our manipulation of complex, language-based, communication. Language involves combining and recombining concepts. You use language in an internal language of thought. It can be used for communication through either speech, signing, or writing. In the context of linguistics, writing is an externalization of language but not considered itself to be language. The capacity for language, rather than the way it is externalized is the issue which has inspired the deepest curiosity. Questions surrounding the evolution of human language are still actively debated today by researchers in a variety of fields, despite having already been studied intensively for many decades. The topic is now being tackled by researchers from a wider range of backgrounds, each brining a special perspective to an established sphere of enquiry.

Within the large body of literature surrounding the evolution of human language, one of the most prominent thinkers is a man sometimes referred to as the father of modern linguistics, Noam Chomsky. Chomsky first argued for the innateness and unique nature of human language, and this is reiterated and expanded on in his collaboration with Bolhuis et al. (2014). Bolhuis et al. (2014) locate the uniqueness of human language in a cognitive ability to combine mental representations, then recursively combine these to create mental representations of almost infinitely complex ideas—they call this ability “merge.” They claim that merging concepts recursively is the core of human grammar, and that this is innate and uniquely human. By contrast, Tecumseh Fitch (2019) emphasizes the continuity of the capacity for mental representation between humans and animals. Tecumseh Fitch (2019) wonders if the merge tendency may be observable in animals, saying that it is crucial to “…explore in detail animals’ abilities to combine concepts. To the extent that they can do so in a flexible, hierarchical manner, I think we can see the germs of the recursive symbolic system that underlies human linguistic concepts” (p. 6).

These writers argue about whether there is a gap in cognitive ability to merge mental representations. However, they agree that even if language evolved for the purpose of communication, evidence suggests that it did not evolve directly from great ape communication systems, which are largely based on instinctive calls (Tecumseh Fitch, 2019). Bolhuis et al., (2014) state that “the origin of the language faculty does not generally seem to be informed by considerations of the evolution of communication” (p. 1). Similarly, Tecumseh Fitch (2019) argues using evidence from various animal behavior studies, that great ape cognitive sophistication reached a level where it supplied all the elements necessary for language to evolve. Starting from a less cognitive perspective, Dunbar (2017) hypothesizes that human language evolved specifically to facilitate the social interactions necessary for humans to form larger social groups. Dunbar analyzed data showing that primate species that live in larger groups have larger neocortical surface areas and spend more time in social interactions/mutual-grooming (2017, p. 209). Primates in large groups form alliances through mutual grooming. The implication Dunbar (2017) drew is that even for early humans, maintaining social cohesion in typical group sizes would have demanded more than twelve hours a day spent grooming (longer than there is daylight most places). Humans needed something to allow bonding with more than one potential ally at a time. Being able to gossip and bond using language fit the bill. Another researcher, Donald (2017) proposes a quite different alternative, namely that early humans needed language to communicate about tools. Using paleo genetic analysis and records of human tool construction, Donald (2017) reconstructs the gradual emergence of complex tools early in human history and finds that the “…archeological evidence suggests strongly that human ancestors were skilled [tool makers] long before they were articulate” (p. 205). The cognitive capacity required for making complex multi-part tools, and showing your children how to make them, provided the impetus for tool-making and language to co-evolve.

These writers have very different approaches to finding evidence about the how human language evolved. The issue of exactly how speech per se developed, the steps along the way, are not addressed in any detail except by Dunbar (2017). Donald (2017) proposes that there must have been a stepwise co-evolution from protolanguage and moderately complex material creations to fully developed language embedded in a fully complex material culture. However, no details are mentioned. Dunbar (2017) discusses evidence pointing to the development of voluntary breath control needed for speech. He explains that the breath control for speech requires such an enlarged thoracic nerve that the thoracic spine was modified to accommodate it (Dunbar, 2017). As a consequence, the fossil records show which hominids had breath control. He also considered the issue of how the steps on the road to language would have been rewarded. He suggests that laughter would have been the first rewarding vocal bonding signal (Dunbar, 2017, p. 210). Implied is that it is both rewarding and pro-social even in modern humans. He then speculates that music or chanting may have played the next a role, citing examples of modern humans using songs without meaningful words to bond while working together (Dunbar, 2017). The final stage, developing language sophisticated enough to discuss events and individuals, is not as elaborated. But Dunbar (2017) does note that in modern workplaces a large part of verbal communication is not about work but instead centers around social chatter, and gossip about mutual acquaintances, or famous people.

The range of ideas about the origins of human language is clearly vast. Even ideas about what questions are most important vary. Yet by considering a range of evidence from the fields as disparate as animal cognition, archeology, paleo-genetics, musicology, anatomy, and considerations of the rewarding qualities of various types of speech, an interdisciplinary approach gives hope that progress may gradually be realized. More and more modern researchers are focused on language as a cognitive phenomenon. Even a researcher like Dunbar (2017) who sees language as evolving for the purposes of communication emphasizes that it was to discuss cognitive concepts like the motivations of other individuals (i.e. theory of mind). Given the direction that research has gone and is now continuing, it seems less likely that the study of animal communication systems alone will provide the breakthrough insights into human language origins.

References