The Evolution Of Language [Archive]

drkitten

6th December 2006, 03:52 PM

Let's discuss this. What is the scientific consensus on how language has evolved in humans? What are the hot areas of debate? Where and when are the next breakthroughs like to come in?

Are you asking about human evolution that resulted in language, or are you asking about the evolution of language itself? They're two radically different fields of study.

The question of the origin of human language is really more of a proto-field than a field of study in its own right, because there's very little data available. Our earliest written records span little more than five thousand years, and it's clear from the records that the human linguistic capacity has changed little in that time. Furthermore, there are also well-documented cases of languages (such as Basque or Ainu) that appear to have no relationship with any other language that we know of. Of course, many of those linguistic isolates are also not well studied (in some cases, all we have are vocabulary lists; in other cases, all we have are a few archeological inscriptions) and currently extinct or nearly-so, so we're also not likely to be able to get much more data.

We do have some evidence -- most recently, the identification of the FOXP2 gene by Gopnik and later researchers -- that the human language capacity is at least partly genetically controlled, but the relevant genes are universal or nearly so, so we don't have much evidence either about when they evolved or what their evolutionary precursors were likely to be. It's also an open question as to whether the capacity for language evolved before language itself did (possibly as an evolutionary spandrel related to some other cognitive capacity) or whether language and the langauge capacity co-evolved.

There have also been some interesting findings regarding the apparent emergence ex nihilo of languages from gestures, for example, among Nicaraguan Deaf (who have "invented" a sign language all their own once public heath/education became wide enough spread to bring a sizable group of deaf children together. I believe Wikipedia has an article on this topic as well.

Unfortunately, the chances of getting the kind of evidence we need for the reconstruction of proto-World, or even testing linguistically whether such a single world language ever existed, are pretty much zero. The data just isn't there and isn't going to be there. At the minimum, the emergence of NSL suggests that it's possible that spoken language was independently invented several times across the world.

andyandy

6th December 2006, 04:13 PM

Dave1001

6th December 2006, 04:20 PM

Zygar

6th December 2006, 04:25 PM

Are you asking about human evolution that resulted in language, or are you asking about the evolution of language itself? They're two radically different fields of study.

The question of the origin of human language is really more of a proto-field than a field of study in its own right, because there's very little data available. Our earliest written records span little more than five thousand years, and it's clear from the records that the human linguistic capacity has changed little in that time. Furthermore, there are also well-documented cases of languages (such as Basque or Ainu) that appear to have no relationship with any other language that we know of. Of course, many of those linguistic isolates are also not well studied (in some cases, all we have are vocabulary lists; in other cases, all we have are a few archeological inscriptions) and currently extinct or nearly-so, so we're also not likely to be able to get much more data.

We do have some evidence -- most recently, the identification of the FOXP2 gene by Gopnik and later researchers -- that the human language capacity is at least partly genetically controlled, but the relevant genes are universal or nearly so, so we don't have much evidence either about when they evolved or what their evolutionary precursors were likely to be. It's also an open question as to whether the capacity for language evolved before language itself did (possibly as an evolutionary spandrel related to some other cognitive capacity) or whether language and the langauge capacity co-evolved.

There have also been some interesting findings regarding the apparent emergence ex nihilo of languages from gestures, for example, among Nicaraguan Deaf (who have "invented" a sign language all their own once public heath/education became wide enough spread to bring a sizable group of deaf children together. I believe Wikipedia has an article on this topic as well.

Unfortunately, the chances of getting the kind of evidence we need for the reconstruction of proto-World, or even testing linguistically whether such a single world language ever existed, are pretty much zero. The data just isn't there and isn't going to be there. At the minimum, the emergence of NSL suggests that it's possible that spoken language was independently invented several times across the world.

Very good and very thorough post.

drkitten

6th December 2006, 04:26 PM

I think it's difficult to draw any precise lines at which homo could be said to possess langauge as a pose to an ability to communicate.....but i'd say somewhere between H erectus and H sapien/neanderthal you see the confluence of physical and cognitive ability necessary for language.

I'd love to know how you assess the "cogntive ability" of an incomplete skull.

We know, for example, from the work of Gopnik et al. that a mutated form of the FOXP2 gene can produce significant cognitive (and specifically linguistics) impairment, but to the best of my knowledge, no amount of anatomical study of the KE family has found any corresponding physical differences that would show up in skeletal remains.

In particular, they appear to have no gross changes in either the hyoid bones or the skeletal structure surrounding Broca's area, which are the two main pieces of evidence you cite.

Going back earlier to H habilus we see that they appear to have a well developed Broca's area which is associated with speech - and this same area also appears on the H erectus cranium of KNM-WT *(a 12year old's skull dating 1.2million years) However it has been argued that the muscle control necessary for the fine regulation of respiration in human speech was absent in this specimen. It would seem as though h erectus had the ability to produce a range of sounds in the context of social interaction (eg. anger, desire) - but a limited range when compared to modern humans - and without the grammatical rules allowing for infinite utterances from a finite number of sounds available.

Again,. I'm not sure how one infers from the presence or absence of a well-developed Broca's area whether or not someone has the capacity for " the grammatical rules allowing for infinite utterances."

Nor does this address the question of whether the development of Broca's area was developed for some other purpose and language capacity came along as a spandrel, to be invented only later. The NSL data shows that a small community can "invent" language within less than a decade, and the creolization process shows that a full-fledged natural langauge can develop in only a hundred years or so, so I really have no evidence to suggest that "language" didn't arise only a hundred years before our earliest writings. I don't believe it -- but the data I would need to formalize my disbelief really isn't there.

Zygar

6th December 2006, 04:39 PM

great posts so far. I'm curious about why it's so inherently difficult to trace back language to common origin(s). I don't have a good intuitive grasp of that difficulty yet. It seems to me we should be able to trace language down its documented historical paths at the least as long as written language has existed, and then be able to extrapolate back. Clearly we seem to lack the resources to retrace but so far currently. I wonder if this will be a problem we can solve with increased technology, or if at some point randomness in the universe/chaos etc. will make it functionally impossible to trace the evolution of human language back much further.

The primary issue is that written language only extends to around 3000 BC. And even those written records include only a dozen or so languages of such antiquity. The majority of languages outside mesopotamia (particularly in the Americas) never developed a written language.

Secondly, it is clear from the history of the written language that there are no clear methods for the progression of language. Look specifically at the English language. It is an amalgam of Old Anglo-Saxon, Old French, and several hundred years of word aquisition from other cultures (e.g. coffee and sugar from Arabic). Modern English developed in such an erratic pattern that it is extremely difficult for Americans to read Chaucer, and his work is only 600 years old!

Finally, even going through the ancient written languages we do have, we are missing some important keys to the puzzle. Pronounciation is at best an educated guess, and at worst made up. Sumerian is an excellent example. It is a language which is fairly extensively recorded, but which is an extinct language isolate. It has no known descendents and no known relatives. This makes even attempting to trace it back utterly impossible.

Another suspected language isolate is the language of the Minoan civilization on Crete. It is one of the oldest recorded languages, but Linear script A has not been interpreted. Unless and until it has been deciphered, it adds nothing to our understanding of the history of language. This situation is not unique to Linear Script A, but it is one of the more frustrating due to how much text we have and cannot read.

drkitten

6th December 2006, 04:40 PM

I'm curious about why it's so inherently difficult to trace back language to common origin(s).

Because spoken language leaves no artifacts, and changes so incredibly rapidly.

SImilarly, we have little idea what the preferred hairstyle of the Germanic tribes of the Roman era were. The Romans didn't make many statues of the Germans, and the Germans didn't make many statues at all.

Actually, that's a micro-lie. There was an archeological breakthrough relatively recently when they found a few "bog people" (northern France, I think) where the hair was sufficiently well-preserved that archeologists can now talk intelligibly about it. But "bog bodies" are incredibly rare events that rely on a really unusual form of chemical preservation. If we could figure out some process that preserves spoken language, we might be able to get our data.

I don't have a good intuitive grasp of that difficulty yet. It seems to me we should be able to trace language down its documented historical paths at the least as long as written language has existed,

For most of the languages in the world, "written language" has existed for less than a century.

And in less than a thousand years, language can go from this :

Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum,

to this:

Marley was dead: to begin with. There is no doubt whatever about that. The register of his burial was signed by the clergyman, the clerk, the undertaker, and the chief mourner. Scrooge signed it: and Scrooge's name was good upon 'Change, for anything he chose to put his hand to. Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail.

and then be able to extrapolate back.

Well, there's your challenge. Suppose I gave you samples of English text from, say, 1800, 1810, and so forth, up to the present day, and then asked you to "extrapolate" to get Beowulf. How far back do you really think you could get? Could you even reconstruct Elizabethan speech patterns?

Clearly we seem to lack the resources to retrace but so far currently. I wonder if this will be a problem we can solve with increased technology, or if at some point randomness in the universe/chaos etc. will make it functionally impossible to trace the evolution of human language back much further.

It's not "randomness in the universe" -- it's simply that the data we would need have been destroyed. Can I figure out what Julius Caesar had for lunch three days before he was murdered? What is there to "extrapolate back" from?

andyandy

6th December 2006, 04:41 PM

I'd love to know how you assess the "cogntive ability" of an incomplete skull.

We know, for example, from the work of Gopnik et al. that a mutated form of the FOXP2 gene can produce significant cognitive (and specifically linguistics) impairment, but to the best of my knowledge, no amount of anatomical study of the KE family has found any corresponding physical differences that would show up in skeletal remains.

In particular, they appear to have no gross changes in either the hyoid bones or the skeletal structure surrounding Broca's area, which are the two main pieces of evidence you cite.

The evaluation of "cognitive ability" is of course rather more involved than just the examination of skulls - it takes in tools, burial traits, art, hunting methods, group sizes, etc. etc. If you're interested in archeological deductions for cognitive ability then Mithen's The prehistory of the mind is a pretty good read.

With regards to Broca's area and hyoid bones, it may be possible that a mutated gene caused impairment despite their presence - however one is then left with the question of their evolution without benefit -
with the case of the hypoid bone, it results in a single rather than two tube vocal system - distinct from other animals, thus carrying the distinct possibility of fatal choking through food lodged in the pharynx. the selective disadvantage of this requires a significant selective advantage to explain its evolution.

Zygar

6th December 2006, 04:51 PM

I'd love to know how you assess the "cogntive ability" of an incomplete skull.

We know, for example, from the work of Gopnik et al. that a mutated form of the FOXP2 gene can produce significant cognitive (and specifically linguistics) impairment, but to the best of my knowledge, no amount of anatomical study of the KE family has found any corresponding physical differences that would show up in skeletal remains.

In particular, they appear to have no gross changes in either the hyoid bones or the skeletal structure surrounding Broca's area, which are the two main pieces of evidence you cite.

Again,. I'm not sure how one infers from the presence or absence of a well-developed Broca's area whether or not someone has the capacity for " the grammatical rules allowing for infinite utterances."

Nor does this address the question of whether the development of Broca's area was developed for some other purpose and language capacity came along as a spandrel, to be invented only later. The NSL data shows that a small community can "invent" language within less than a decade, and the creolization process shows that a full-fledged natural langauge can develop in only a hundred years or so, so I really have no evidence to suggest that "language" didn't arise only a hundred years before our earliest writings. I don't believe it -- but the data I would need to formalize my disbelief really isn't there.

I watched a Discovery Channel show about Neanderthals that suggested what andyandy said. I recall from the show that they had a complete skull and somehow took an internal cast of the skull. I suspect that there has been quite a bit of speculation about the structure of the Neanderthal brain from this cast.

As far as the hyoid bone, I think all it proves is that since it is similar to a modern human's, speech was possible. It doesn't prove language existed.

drkitten

6th December 2006, 04:59 PM

The evaluation of "cognitive ability" is of course rather more involved than just the examination of skulls - it takes in tools, burial traits, art, hunting methods, group sizes, etc. etc. If you're interested in archeological deductions for cognitive ability then Mithen's The prehistory of the mind is a pretty good read.

Read it. About the most accurate thing I can say about it is that it's "speculative."

.... which of course, is fine -- if you've got no data, then all you can do is speculate.

But -- and I'm afraid that I keep getting back to the Nicaraguan kids, but that's because they're such a relevant counterexample, one of the key lessons from these groups of nonlingual children is that mere absence of "language" does not necessarily impair general cognitive function; the nonlingual Nicaraguans were nevertheless able to make and use tools, hold relativley complex jobs, be taught skills, and so forth. (I admit that very few of them became doctors and lawyers -- but the demands of their society were substantially greater than a typical hunter/gatherer one; certainly learning "hunting techniques" would not have been beyond them, despite their near total absence of language.)

with the case of the hypoid bone, it results in a single rather than two tube vocal system - distinct from other animals, thus carrying the distinct possibility of fatal choking through food lodged in the pharynx. the selective disadvantage of this requires a significant selective advantage to explain its evolution.

Well, that's the question, isn't it? Broca's area seems to cover a lot more than just grammar. In particular, it seems to handle temporal sequencing (in general), which could include a lot of other cultural aspects of language -- music, dance, motor "skill" use (such as tool making), and so forth. In particular, there is some evidence (http://www.johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/brain/function/brocas_area_hierarchical_temporal_action_2006.w) of an evolutionarily prior use of Broca's area (more accurately, its less well-developed analogue) for exactly this purpose. (This is supported by the observance that infants "babble" not only with their voices but with their hands.)

The hypoid bone doesn't actually create that much of a evolutionary disadvantage (choking on food is a relatively rare occurance), so similarly the corresponding benefit need not be that great. GIven that other apes have been shown to use specific vocalizations to specific purposes -- e.g. threat-specific warning cries among vervet monkeys -- the ability to have fine control over vocalizations could easily be a benefit that does not necessarily imply "language."

Jeff Corey

6th December 2006, 05:01 PM

Because spoken language leaves no artifacts, and changes so incredibly rapidly....
... Suppose I gave you samples of English text from, say, 1800, 1810, and so forth, up to the present day, and then asked you to "extrapolate" to get Beowulf. How far back do you really think you could get? Could you even reconstruct Elizabethan speech patterns?...

Look at the Great Vowel Shift in English sometime after Chaucer. No wonder the rhyming is funny.

Dave1001

6th December 2006, 05:24 PM

Zygar

6th December 2006, 05:30 PM

I'm trying to get a good sene what we can trace in terms of language evolution and at what places exactly we hit walls.

I'm going to hunt for a good, national geographic-type illustration that accurately sums up and connects the scientific consensus of language development and evolution up to the currently living languages. If anyone has links to such illustrations please post them to this thread.

I ran into a book that I thought did a pretty good job explaining what I think you are looking for. I think it was The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language (http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Encyclopedia-Language-David-Crystal/dp/0521559677).

fuelair

6th December 2006, 05:33 PM

Dave1001

6th December 2006, 05:34 PM

Dave1001

6th December 2006, 05:39 PM

I ran into a book that I thought did a pretty good job explaining what I think you are looking for. I think it was The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language (http://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Encyclopedia-Language-David-Crystal/dp/0521559677).

It gets amazing reviews. Unfortunately it may be years before I have a chance to read this book cover to cover, if ever.:(

Zygar

6th December 2006, 05:43 PM

It gets amazing reviews. Unfortunately it may be years before I have a chance to read this book cover to cover, if ever.:(

Try sitting down with it at your library or Barnes and Noble. I haven't read it all the way through, either. It's well organized and I suspect you could glean what you need by focusing on a couple of the chapters.

Zygar

6th December 2006, 05:47 PM

Here's a chart I've found that attempts to trace all the world's languages to a common origin. I suspect from other discussion here that it's highly speculative. Is it complete BS? They seem to be trying to link language differentiation with the history of human population migration, Cavalli Sforza style, which I understand most posters here think is a discredited (or at least unsupported) theory.

http://rationalrevolution.net/images/languagefamilychart.jpg

That looks relatively close to the current thoughts on it. But it is speculation. The further back you go (San and Pygmy) the harder it is to know for certain what is older. And living languages are always evolving, so every current language could be just as far from the original as English is.

Dave1001

6th December 2006, 06:14 PM

That looks relatively close to the current thoughts on it. But it is speculation. The further back you go (San and Pygmy) the harder it is to know for certain what is older. And living languages are always evolving, so every current language could be just as far from the original as English is.

If that's relatively close to the current thought, that indicates to me that current thought IS that language differentiation roughly parallels human genetic population migration, unless I'm reading that chart incorrectly. The language differentiation in it seems at the least to parallel the L1, L2, L3 haplogroup differentiation that population geneticists think occured with humans.*

Or am I misinterpreting something either in your post or in the chart?

*according to wikipedia

Zygar

6th December 2006, 08:04 PM

Jeff Corey

6th December 2006, 08:45 PM

Correlation does not imply causality.

It is not a chart of how language evolved, but where it progressed. You could almost say that it is a chart of human migration associated by language family. It has nothing to do with which language is older.

You better watch it. The OP requested that we not attack other people, and that criticism could be construed as an attack by an overly sensitive person. And those kind of attacks all too often degenerate into rudeness.
We wouldn't want that, would we?

andyandy

7th December 2006, 02:51 AM

Read it. About the most accurate thing I can say about it is that it's "speculative."

.... which of course, is fine -- if you've got no data, then all you can do is speculate.

But -- and I'm afraid that I keep getting back to the Nicaraguan kids, but that's because they're such a relevant counterexample, one of the key lessons from these groups of nonlingual children is that mere absence of "language" does not necessarily impair general cognitive function; the nonlingual Nicaraguans were nevertheless able to make and use tools, hold relativley complex jobs, be taught skills, and so forth. (I admit that very few of them became doctors and lawyers -- but the demands of their society were substantially greater than a typical hunter/gatherer one; certainly learning "hunting techniques" would not have been beyond them, despite their near total absence of language.)

Well, that's the question, isn't it? Broca's area seems to cover a lot more than just grammar. In particular, it seems to handle temporal sequencing (in general), which could include a lot of other cultural aspects of language -- music, dance, motor "skill" use (such as tool making), and so forth. In particular, there is some evidence (http://www.johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/brain/function/brocas_area_hierarchical_temporal_action_2006.w) of an evolutionarily prior use of Broca's area (more accurately, its less well-developed analogue) for exactly this purpose. (This is supported by the observance that infants "babble" not only with their voices but with their hands.)

The hypoid bone doesn't actually create that much of a evolutionary disadvantage (choking on food is a relatively rare occurance), so similarly the corresponding benefit need not be that great. GIven that other apes have been shown to use specific vocalizations to specific purposes -- e.g. threat-specific warning cries among vervet monkeys -- the ability to have fine control over vocalizations could easily be a benefit that does not necessarily imply "language."

interesting post. :)

Beady

7th December 2006, 03:48 AM

Dave1001

7th December 2006, 03:59 AM

If that's relatively close to the current thought, that indicates to me that current thought IS that language differentiation roughly parallels human genetic population migration, unless I'm reading that chart incorrectly. The language differentiation in it seems at the least to parallel the L1, L2, L3 haplogroup differentiation that population geneticists think occured with humans.*

Or am I misinterpreting something either in your post or in the chart?

*according to wikipedia
Correlation does not imply causality.

It is not a chart of how language evolved, but where it progressed. You could almost say that it is a chart of human migration associated by language family. It has nothing to do with which language is older.

Right. I don't think I mentioned causality. Just correlation. However, once one notices correlation exists, I think it's reasonable to explore the extent of the relationship further, to determine whether it's a random correlation or not.

Apparently that's been done, and at least some linguists think the correlation is random?

Dave1001

7th December 2006, 04:04 AM

Modern English developed in such an erratic pattern that it is extremely difficult for Americans to read Chaucer, and his work is only 600 years old!
I dunno if this comment belongs here, contextually. We can read Shakespeare with little or no trouble but, IIRC, it would have been just as difficult for Shakespeare to read Chaucer as it is for us, even though the gap between us and Bill is much greater than the one between Bill and Geof. Something happened to the language somewhere in there that has nothing to do with "evolution."

I remember reading one theory (perhaps by Bloom?), which is rather poetic, that Shakespeare's work was of such genius and beauty that English speakers have refused to advance the language to the point where Shakespeare could no longer be understood.

It also just occurs to me, that the invention of mass English culture may have occured around this time. I recall reading that the first mass portraits of the head of state were commissioned at this time, with Queen Elizabeth having portraits of her mass produced and distributed across the nation.

I'm sure this is something that's been studied for English and other languages, I'd be interested to know what the leading theories are for this type language crystalization.

Beady

7th December 2006, 05:20 AM

I remember reading one theory (perhaps by Bloom?), which is rather poetic, that Shakespeare's work was of such genius and beauty that English speakers have refused to advance the language to the point where Shakespeare could no longer be understood.

Hmm...

"Bill Gate's work was of such genius and beauty that computer users have refused to advance programming to the point where Microsoft could no longer be used."

Nah. Sounds good, but I don't see it.

Cuddles

7th December 2006, 05:23 AM

I dunno if this comment belongs here, contextually. We can read Shakespeare with little or no trouble but, IIRC, it would have been just as difficult for Shakespeare to read Chaucer as it is for us, even though the gap between us and Bill is much greater than the one between Bill and Geof. Something happened to the language somewhere in there that has nothing to do with "evolution."

How does this have nothing to do with evolution? The evolution of a language describes everything that has happened to it, whether it is a gradual change or a sudden one. One of the biggest, if not the biggest, influences on English has been repeated invasions from different cultures with different languages. Would you claim that the changes due to incorporation of French, Germanic and Nordic languages are not evolution?

There have also been some interesting findings regarding the apparent emergence ex nihilo of languages from gestures, for example, among Nicaraguan Deaf (who have "invented" a sign language all their own once public heath/education became wide enough spread to bring a sizable group of deaf children together. I believe Wikipedia has an article on this topic as well.

I should point out that this is by no means new, or exclusive to Nicaragua. Virtually all sign languages are real languages evolved by deaf people, and it is a common misconception that they were invented by people who could hear in order to teach deaf people, in the way that Braille was invented for blind people. The only sign language that has not evolved this way is International Sign Language, that is basically the Esperanto of the deaf languages, although much more popular.

Dave1001

7th December 2006, 06:06 AM

Hmm...

"Bill Gate's work was of such genius and beauty that computer users have refused to advance programming to the point where Microsoft could no longer be used."

Nah. Sounds good, but I don't see it.

I don't see a strong parallel between what Bill Gates did for progamming and what Shakespeare did for the English language. (Although I'm also skeptical of (Bloom's?) theory.

Beady

7th December 2006, 06:48 AM

I don't see a strong parallel between what Bill Gates did for progamming and what Shakespeare did for the English language. (Although I'm also skeptical of (Bloom's?) theory.

Yeah, well, I can't find a tongue-in-cheek smiley.

drkitten

7th December 2006, 08:23 AM

I should point out that this is by no means new, or exclusive to Nicaragua. Virtually all sign languages are real languages evolved by deaf people,

In broad terms, yes. In narrow terms, no, the NSL event is relatively unique.

Most sign languages are descendents of older existing sign languages (for example, American Sign Language is a descendant of the sign language used in the 19th century on Martha's Vinyard, I believe) that have spread through "colonization" ; a person fluent in the older language adapts it to a new group. The Nicaraguan children are unique in that (as far as we know), the language literally emerged out of nothing but gestures. For the first ten years or so of its development, the relevant staff didn't even know that it was happening (they were trying to teach the kids to communicate using Spanish and lip-reading, not any variation of sign language), and when they finally twigged and brought in an ASL specialist to observe, she made a point of not teaching them any ASL or other sign languages. (And she caught hell for that from a number of Deaf ethicists, since she more or less guaranteed that NSL "speakers" will not have an easy time communicating cross-culturally because their language has nothing in common with other, more "typical" sign languages).

drkitten

7th December 2006, 08:26 AM

That looks relatively close to the current thoughts on it. But it is speculation. The further back you go (San and Pygmy) the harder it is to know for certain what is older. And living languages are always evolving, so every current language could be just as far from the original as English is.

Ainu and Na-Dene are sister families? And more recently so than either Japanese/Korean or Uralic/Altaic? Despite the Pacific being in between?

Is there really a consensus of "current thoughts" regarding anything older than 10,000 years on that chart?

Mercutio

7th December 2006, 10:43 AM

Dave1001

7th December 2006, 11:25 AM

Two major somethings--the printing press, and the dictionary. Both were huge pressures against variation.

From Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary:

has that been studied empirically, whether printing press threshhold level of literary technology and dictionaries retard language variation? Is there a scientific consensus that this is why English seems to have changed less from Shakespeare to the present than it did from Chaucer to Shakespeare, at least in terms of backwards comprehensibility (I'm assuming here that Chaucer would also be difficult for Shakespearean English speakers to understand).

Zygar

7th December 2006, 11:51 AM

Ainu and Na-Dene are sister families? And more recently so than either Japanese/Korean or Uralic/Altaic? Despite the Pacific being in between?

Is there really a consensus of "current thoughts" regarding anything older than 10,000 years on that chart?

I said "relatively". But you are absolutely correct to point this issue out. The more I look at it the more I think that the obvious ones are there, but so are a few that are purely speculation on someone's part. It's on wikipedia, so it's probably just made up by some guy who wants to sound smart.

Zygar

7th December 2006, 11:54 AM

Two major somethings--the printing press, and the dictionary. Both were huge pressures against variation.

From Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary:

Precisely. Variation has been slowed simply by the prevalence of the written word.

Zygar

7th December 2006, 11:56 AM

Hmm...

"Bill Gate's work was of such genius and beauty that computer users have refused to advance programming to the point where Microsoft could no longer be used."

Nah. Sounds good, but I don't see it.

Bill Gate's work has never been held in high esteem. This is a false analogy.

Not that I necessarily agree with the Shakespeare theory. I think it simply has to do with literacy and education. Prior to the printing press, literacy was much lower simply due to the cost of owning a book.

drkitten

7th December 2006, 12:21 PM

has that been studied empirically

How would you study language change "empirically"?

Is that like trying to do "empirical" history?

drkitten

7th December 2006, 12:28 PM

I said "relatively". But you are absolutely correct to point this issue out. The more I look at it the more I think that the obvious ones are there, but so are a few that are purely speculation on someone's part. It's on wikipedia, so it's probably just made up by some guy who wants to sound smart.

That's more or less my take on it as well; it's rather like the various "descent from Jesus" family trees that were popular for royal families in the late Middle Ages, where you did a real family tree as far back as records existed, and then invented stuff to get back to the important person you were trying to trace descent from. It looks to me like the author took what was known and accepted -- most of the stuffto the right of the line labelled "10" -- and then Made Stuff Up that Looked Cool (to the left of that line) in order to connect the various linguistic groups.

In particular, I would like to point out -- mostly to Dave1001, since you already know this -- that there is no scientific consensus that all languages are descended from a single proto-World language. In fact, there is specifically a scientific consensus that to make such a statement is irresponsible and unprofessional -- precisely because there is no accepted linguistic methodology or data set that could possibly give meaningful answers that far back.

That's not to say that there is a scientific consensus that proto-World did not exist, either. The scientific consensus is that the question you ask is unanswerable, that the data and investigative methods you would need to address the question do not exist. It's the linguistic equivalent of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" First, define "angel" and build me an angel-detector, then we'll start counting.

JoeTheJuggler

7th December 2006, 12:57 PM

I agree with drKitten that it's really an unanswerable question, but still a fun topic that can be discussed with more or less rationality. Here's an example of less:

I used to be an interpreter for the Deaf. What's called "home signs" used to be pretty common in a situation where a single deaf child grew up away from the "Deaf Community"--basically ad hoc invented signs useful in the family or whatever. (In fact, with some clients the language might be a mixture of ASL and the home signs they insisted on using.)

At that time I read some conjecture that maybe the roots of semiotics was in hand gestures. It's just an idea that "feels right"--I don't think anyone can argue the point one way or the other. I always imagine some early hominid teaching some skill to his offspring--first by demonstration, then by miming out the actions as the kid attempts it. Or maybe simply "hand me that fruit" communicated by pointing to the fruit then to "me".

I mentioned this idea to an interpreter I worked with who is an evangelical Xian of some sort. His response was that there is no such thing as the evolution of human language. In the beginning was the Word (which he took to mean language)--all our languages (from the tower of Babel story) are merely corruptions of the language that was given to us by god.

Of course he also believed the firmament is some sort of invisible sphere surrounding the earth (that once held back a huge quantity of water).

supercorgi

7th December 2006, 01:24 PM

Actually, that's a micro-lie. There was an archeological breakthrough relatively recently when they found a few "bog people" (northern France, I think) where the hair was sufficiently well-preserved that archeologists can now talk intelligibly about it. But "bog bodies" are incredibly rare events that rely on a really unusual form of chemical preservation.

This is off topic but you're not entirely right about the bog bodies. The bog conditions usually preserve the skin and also hair and clothing. It's the bones that often get dissolved. There are many bog bodies with hair (even one with a beard!) There's been some really interesting discoveries on hairstyles due to bog bodies. A particularly interesting one is Osterby Man (http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/bog/clothing2.html):

In 1948 a head was found wrapped in a deerskin cape in the Köhlmoor near Osterby, Schleswig-Holstein in Germany. Most remarkable is the man's coiffure, known as a Swabian knot. The Roman author Tacitus gives a detailed description of this particular knot is his book Germania (A.D. 98). Osterby Man was decapitated between A.D. 70 and 220. (Archäologisches Landesmuseum of Germany, Schleswig)

The Elling Woman (http://www.tollundman.dk/ellingkvinden.asp) also had a very interesting and complicated hairstyle.

Bog bodies are fascinating.

drkitten

7th December 2006, 02:35 PM

This is off topic but you're not entirely right about the bog bodies. The bog conditions usually preserve the skin and also hair and clothing. It's the bones that often get dissolved. There are many bog bodies with hair (even one with a beard!)

I don't think we're disagreeing. In fact, Osterby Man (and Tacitus' "Swabian Knot") is the example I was thinking of for the documentation of hairstyles.

The problem is that although the bogs can preserve skin and hair (and they're one of the few environments where that is possible), the bodies tend to decay extremely rapidly upon removal from the bog unless they're treated immediately with some sort of preservative. So although bog bodies have been being exavated for centuries, it's only in the last few decades that scientists have been able to make any sort of analysis of bog bodies (and particular of stuff like hair). It's hard to analyze stuff that doesn't even last long enough to make it into your lab.

That, and of course the problem that bog bodies themselves are rare. The "Swabian Knot" was evidently common enough that Tacitus felt it important to describe -- and we've got one surviving example. If Osterby Man had been dug up in 1848 instead of 1948, we wouldn't have any idea what the Swabian Knot really looked like.

Overman

7th December 2006, 02:38 PM

Great Thread All!!!

supercorgi

7th December 2006, 02:46 PM

I don't think we're disagreeing. In fact, Osterby Man (and Tacitus' "Swabian Knot") is the example I was thinking of for the documentation of hairstyles.

I wasn't disagreeing with you - just wanted to point out that there were other incidences of bog bodies with hair (though not bog bodies how about those fantastic Takla Makan mummies (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/chinamum/taklamakan.html)?). I was also reacting to your "relatively recently" statement because I got excited thinking someone had found some new bodies and I went looking for them. :D

Bog bodies are extremely rare but do provide a wealth of information (just in the glimpses of pre-historic textiles alone). You're right about the quick decomposition after exposure though - it's a pity that more efforts weren't made long ago to preserve such finds.

Dave1001

7th December 2006, 02:53 PM

That's more or less my take on it as well; it's rather like the various "descent from Jesus" family trees that were popular for royal families in the late Middle Ages, where you did a real family tree as far back as records existed, and then invented stuff to get back to the important person you were trying to trace descent from. It looks to me like the author took what was known and accepted -- most of the stuffto the right of the line labelled "10" -- and then Made Stuff Up that Looked Cool (to the left of that line) in order to connect the various linguistic groups.

In particular, I would like to point out -- mostly to Dave1001, since you already know this -- that there is no scientific consensus that all languages are descended from a single proto-World language. In fact, there is specifically a scientific consensus that to make such a statement is irresponsible and unprofessional -- precisely because there is no accepted linguistic methodology or data set that could possibly give meaningful answers that far back.

That's not to say that there is a scientific consensus that proto-World did not exist, either. The scientific consensus is that the question you ask is unanswerable, that the data and investigative methods you would need to address the question do not exist.

Here's a side question. All humans are descended from the same human female right? How likely do we think it is that she spoke a language. Is it completely unanswerable how likely it is she spoke a language? How does the scientific community break down on this question, and also the question as to whether it's there's any indication one way or another that she spoke a language.

Dave1001

7th December 2006, 03:01 PM

At that time I read some conjecture that maybe the roots of semiotics was in hand gestures. It's just an idea that "feels right"--I don't think anyone can argue the point one way or the other. I always imagine some early hominid teaching some skill to his offspring--first by demonstration, then by miming out the actions as the kid attempts it. Or maybe simply "hand me that fruit" communicated by pointing to the fruit then to "me".

I think AndyAndy mentioned in this thread or another one that our throat structure (and also possibly the throat structure of neanderthals?) is such that we're more likely to choke to death eating or drowing due to space/structure that facilitates our vocal communication. Can other folks (DrKitten?) confirm this? I think AndyAndy mentioned it as an indication that life with that structure would seem likely to be engaging in vocal communication, because otherwise it would seem to be a strange biological disadvnatage to maintain. If so, how likely do folks (and the scientific community) think it is that that structure indicates such life was already engaging in vocal communication? As a note I don't have time to look up and re-read AndyAndy's post so any misrepresentations of it are unintentional.

*Please no personal attacks, personal criticisms, ad hominems, rudeness directed towards me, etc. for this post.

Mercutio

7th December 2006, 03:18 PM

Here's a side question. All humans are descended from the same human female right? Um, I don't think so. There is no bright line to divide human from protohuman, and say "this one is the first".

fls

7th December 2006, 03:22 PM

Dave1001

7th December 2006, 03:31 PM

Here's a side question. All humans are descended from the same human female right?

Um, I don't think so. There is no bright line to divide human from protohuman, and say "this one is the first".

Really? I thought that modern humans had already been around for a while when the human female we're all descended from was born. I just thought it was a matter of her matrilineal descendants basically killing off/outbreeding the other modern humans. Am I incorrect in this understanding?

Dave1001

7th December 2006, 03:33 PM

drkitten

7th December 2006, 03:33 PM

Here's a side question. All humans are descended from the same human female right? How likely do we think it is that she spoke a language.

Well, all humans are also descended from the same cynodont (mammal-like reptile), and I'm fairly confident that she didn't speak a language.

So the question comes down to whether our mitochondrial Eve lived before or after the emergence of language (and if after was she a pathological case like Genie, which is unlikely but possible).

Given that we don't really know when our mitochondrial Eve existed except within some very broad error bars, and we have no idea at all when language emerged.....

Is it completely unanswerable how likely it is she spoke a language?

No, but we just need much better data than we have.

Our current best guess as to Eve's age is between about 150 and 300 thousand years ago. Many estimates of the emergence of language peg it to the rise of anatomically modern humans and a sudden perceived rise in cultural complxity, dated anywhere from about 35,000 to about 100,000 years ago, with a strong emphasis on "damfino."

Given the degree of non-overlap here, I'll take the "under" unless you give me good odds the other way.

drkitten

7th December 2006, 03:38 PM

I think AndyAndy mentioned in this thread or another one that our throat structure (and also possibly the throat structure of neanderthals?) is such that we're more likely to choke to death eating or drowing due to space/structure that facilitates our vocal communication. Can other folks (DrKitten?) confirm this?

Yes, I can confirm it. It's well known that the throat structure of humans is unusual and very badly designed in part due to the needs of spoken language.

I think AndyAndy mentioned it as an indication that life with that structure would seem likely to be engaging in vocal communication, because otherwise it would seem to be a strange biological disadvnatage to maintain. If so, how likely do folks (and the scientific community) think it is that that structure indicates such life was already engaging in vocal communication?

Well, first, is "vocal communication" the same as "language"? I mean, vervet monkeys engage in "vocal communication."

Second, how serious a disadvantage is the rather slight possibility of choking on one's food?
Compared to the possibility of being crippled and dying as a result of our badly designed back, I'd put "choking" somewhere at the bottom of page 3 in my list of "why humans are broken."

Basically -- these observations won't carry the necessary explanatory load.

Dave1001

7th December 2006, 03:45 PM

Our current best guess as to Eve's age is between about 150 and 300 thousand years ago. Many estimates of the emergence of language peg it to the rise of anatomically modern humans and a sudden perceived rise in cultural complxity, dated anywhere from about 35,000 to about 100,000 years ago, with a strong emphasis on "damfino."

Given the degree of non-overlap here, I'll take the "under" unless you give me good odds the other way.

Interesting, so it seems the estimates place the emergence of language significantly after the emergence of the female whose mitochondrial dna we all share.

Yup, so far what I see coming out of this, at least as relayed by you and others in this thread, is how little we still know about this period, when so many formative/seminal events for our species occured (global dispersal, emergence of language, interaction with neanderthals, etc.).

Dave1001

7th December 2006, 03:53 PM

I think AndyAndy mentioned it as an indication that life with that structure would seem likely to be engaging in vocal communication, because otherwise it would seem to be a strange biological disadvnatage to maintain. If so, how likely do folks (and the scientific community) think it is that that structure indicates such life was already engaging in vocal communication?

Well, first, is "vocal communication" the same as "language"? I mean, vervet monkeys engage in "vocal communication."

No, its not (of course). But a throat that seems naturally selected to maximize vocal communication ability probably wouldn't have been selected for to maximize sign language ability, which is why I asked if you and other thought its appearance indicates humans were already engaging in vocal communication. As for vervet monkeys, I assume that they lack a similar throat design situation as us (with its food intake deficiencies) and that they also lack the verbal communicative advantages that come with our throat design (and of course our mental ability to use it).

Second, how serious a disadvantage is the rather slight possibility of choking on one's food?
Compared to the possibility of being crippled and dying as a result of our badly designed back, I'd put "choking" somewhere at the bottom of page 3 in my list of "why humans are broken."

Basically -- these observations won't carry the necessary explanatory load.

Right, I don't know how we ended up with a defective back relative to possible design, but I do think there's a difference at least between our appendix and our throat design, because my understanding is the appendix used to serve a purpose and may now be vestigial, whereas our throat has possibly been selected for in such a way that it has become worse at food in-take, but possibly compensating by being much better at vocal communication. Thoughts?

*Standard disclaimer: no personal attacks, rudeness, etc. directed at me for this post, please.

andyandy

7th December 2006, 04:08 PM

As a cause of death in the modern era, death by choking or drowning (other than submersion in water where it wouldn't matter how your throat was structured) is rare. I find it hard to see how it could provide any sort of selection pressure.

Linda

but we're not talking about the "modern era" here - there was no blenders and baby food for early homo....meat on the bone eaten hand to mouth is hardly comparable to diet or eating methods of the modern era. It's also unlikely that the Heimlich Maneuver was known, nor bronchoscopes used when food did become lodged. 2/3s (http://www.aap.org/pubed/ZZZ8QH03B7C.htm?&sub_cat=1) of choking victims are children under 1 today - and it's particularly this demographic that would have faced selective pressures.....

The expansion of the pharynx creates some real problems. For instance, it means that laughing while drinking tends to propel liquids out the nose. Much more seriously, it's relatively easy for us to get a chunk of food lodged in the larynx, with potentially fatal results. To quote from Holloway 1996, The evolution of the human vocal apparatus:

The lower position of the larynx alters dramatically the way humans... breathe and swallow. The loss of the ability of the epiglottis to make contact with the soft palate means that the possibility of having two largely separate pathways, one for air and one for liquid, no longer exists. The respiratory and digestive tracts now cross each other in the area of the pharynx... This new configuration can, and does, have unfortunate drawbacks. The major problem is that a bolus of food can become lodged in the entrance of the larynx. If this material cannot be expelled rapidly an individual may literally choke to death... Another disadvantage of the crossed pathways is the relative ease with which vomit can be aspirated into the trachea, and thus pass into the lungs.
This problem is even worse for men than for women, because as a secondary sexual characteristic of male humans, the larynx increases in size and moves lower in the throat at puberty. None of the other great apes show this laryngeal sexual dimorphism, or indeed any other vocal tract dimorphism -- though they have much greater dimorphism in overall size, and also show dimorphism of canine teeth, which humans entirely lack.
The unique human development of sexual dimorphism in larynx size and position presumably means that vocalization is important to us in ways that it is not to gorillas and chimps. http://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/ling001/com_bio.html

You have others like Lieberman and Mitthen also arguing that the new vocal morphology had to evolve for speech because it was too costly otherwise (ie risk of choking and reduced respiratory efficiency)

http://www.adres.polytechnique.fr/SEMINAIRE/ROY/02102006.pdf (the whole article is worth a read - the lieberman cite p3)

andyandy

7th December 2006, 04:12 PM

I think AndyAndy mentioned in this thread or another one that our throat structure (and also possibly the throat structure of neanderthals?) is such that we're more likely to choke to death eating or drowing due to space/structure that facilitates our vocal communication. Can other folks (DrKitten?) confirm this? I think AndyAndy mentioned it as an indication that life with that structure would seem likely to be engaging in vocal communication, because otherwise it would seem to be a strange biological disadvnatage to maintain. If so, how likely do folks (and the scientific community) think it is that that structure indicates such life was already engaging in vocal communication? As a note I don't have time to look up and re-read AndyAndy's post so any misrepresentations of it are unintentional.

*Please no personal attacks, personal criticisms, ad hominems, rudeness directed towards me, etc. for this post.

it's really not too far away - it was post number 4 on this thread.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2154413#post2154413

drkitten

7th December 2006, 04:15 PM

2/3s (http://www.aap.org/pubed/ZZZ8QH03B7C.htm?&sub_cat=1) of choking victims are children under 1 today - and it's particularly this demographic that would have faced selective pressures.....

My understanding is that children under 1 year old are still nursing in most preindustrial (or preagricultural) societies.

Which of course implies that they are still on liquids --- baby food.

I see no reason why early homo would be substantially different.

Similarly, if most victims of choking really were under 1, then post-puberty adjustments to the male vocal tract wouldn't apply that much selection pressure.

I guess we just disagree about the significance of "choking" as a cause of death.

andyandy

7th December 2006, 04:34 PM

My understanding is that children under 1 year old are still nursing in most preindustrial (or preagricultural) societies.

Which of course implies that they are still on liquids --- baby food.

I see no reason why early homo would be substantially different.

Similarly, if most victims of choking really were under 1, then post-puberty adjustments to the male vocal tract wouldn't apply that much selection pressure.

I guess we just disagree about the significance of "choking" as a cause of death.

yes - good points -

i think we can agree that there would be some selective pressure against the single vocal tract - due to increased choking/poorer respiratory regulation - but it does seem hard to do more than speculative as to how strong this negative selective pressure was.
if there was indeed only a small negative selective pressure due to the expansion of the phalynx etc. then i agree that we don't need anything as dramatic as "language" to explain its selection. Are there other theories as to the reason for the expansion of the phalynx unrelated to increased vocal capacity? It still seems the most likely explanation to me......

drkitten

7th December 2006, 04:40 PM

i think we can agree that there would be some selective pressure against the single vocal tract - due to increased choking/poorer respiratory regulation - but it does seem hard to do more than speculative as to how strong this negative selective pressure was.

Which is more or less my point.

if there was indeed only a small negative selective pressure due to the expansion of the phalynx etc. then i agree that we don't need anything as dramatic as "language" to explain its selection. Are there other theories as to the reason for the expansion of the phalynx unrelated to increased vocal capacity? It still seems the most likely explanation to me......

Oh, there are dozens, and I could probably come up with another half-dozen off the top of my head. But they are almost all completely speculative, and most of them aren't even as convincing as an aluminium Olde English beer stein.

The most parsimonious explanation is that one specifically human characteristic (the altered phalynx) was caused by the emergence of another specifically human characteristic (speech). Occam's razor suggests that we should go with this idea.

The problem is -- in biology, Occam's razor cuts your throat.

andyandy

7th December 2006, 04:43 PM

another good article here - introducing some of the debate with regards to the conclusions drawn from the hypoid bone...

Within the last decade, scientists excavating an archaeological site in Israel, the Kebara Cave, have dug up and analyzed one tiny bone that, they believe, may single-handedly disprove the traditional theory that only modern humans could talk. The structure in question is the hyoid, a horseshoe-shaped bone resting freely in the throat, attached indirectly to the larynx, tongue, and base of the skull by ligaments and muscles.
snip
The tiny hyoid may have huge implications for demonstrating the capacity for speech in fossil hominids. It is attached to the muscles controlling the tongue, and its delicate movement within the throat helps control the formulation of speech.

The Kebara hyoid once belonged to an otherwise anonymous Neanderthal individual who roamed coastal Israel during the Middle Paleolithic at the same time that anatomically modern humans were inhabiting parts of Africa. Schepartz and her Kebara Cave associates argue that this ancient hyoid falls within the range of variation of fully modern human hyoids, both in shape and size, as well as in the way the muscles attached to it. The Kebara hyoid differs markedly in appearance from those of modern great apes. Schepartz and her colleagues doubt the importance of the link between basicranial flexion and the capacity for speech. Their Neanderthal, they claim, could talk.

snip
[However] Lieberman and Laitman point to the importance of the position of the hyoid, and the rest of the vocal apparatus, rather than just its size and shape, as indicative of the capability to produce speech. An isolated hyoid, they assert, can tell us nothing about the orientation of the voice box. Infant humans have larynxes placed high in the throat; as a child develops, the larynx gradually descends, physically allowing a child to speak. The shape of the hyoid plays no role in the development of a child's ability to produce spoken words. The Kebara Neanderthal, suggest Lieberman and Laitman, may have had an infant-like laryngeal orientation, and could thus speak only as well as a human infant. http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Publications/ZooGoer/1995/6/firstwords.cfm

Dogdoctor

7th December 2006, 04:44 PM

This discussion brings to mind that the structure of the throat is not intelligently designed or we would have a separate airway and ingestive opening or at least have the epiglottis situated so that food passes under it when eating rather than over it.

fls

7th December 2006, 04:47 PM

but we're not talking about the "modern era" here - there was no blenders and baby food for early homo....meat on the bone eaten hand to mouth is hardly comparable to diet or eating methods of the modern era. It's also unlikely that the Heimlich Maneuver was known, nor bronchoscopes used when food did become lodged. 2/3s (http://www.aap.org/pubed/ZZZ8QH03B7C.htm?&sub_cat=1) of choking victims are children under 1 today - and it's particularly this demographic that would have faced selective pressures.....

Babies under a year of age are not eating meat off the bone. Using anthropologic data, they were likely nursed well past that age.

Linda

Dave1001

7th December 2006, 04:48 PM

if there was indeed only a small negative selective pressure due to the expansion of the phalynx etc. then i agree that we don't need anything as dramatic as "language" to explain its selection. Are there other theories as to the reason for the expansion of the phalynx unrelated to increased vocal capacity? It still seems the most likely explanation to me......
Oh, there are dozens, and I could probably come up with another half-dozen off the top of my head. But they are almost all completely speculative, and most of them aren't even as convincing as an aluminium Olde English beer stein.

The most parsimonious explanation is that one specifically human characteristic (the altered phalynx) was caused by the emergence of another specifically human characteristic (speech). Occam's razor suggests that we should go with this idea.

The problem is -- in biology, Occam's razor cuts your throat.

Do you mind sharing your top 3 of those dozens of speculative explanations? I'm honestly curious, and can't come up with any off the top of my head besides random genetic drift or some type of arbitrary founder effect.

andyandy

7th December 2006, 04:50 PM

andyandy

7th December 2006, 04:52 PM

Babies under a year of age are not eating meat off the bone. Using anthropologic data, they were likely nursed well past that age.

Linda

yes - i'm not sure my statement about the under 1s being under specific selective pressure in the early homo lineage was accuarate........:)

Dave1001

7th December 2006, 04:52 PM

another good article here - introducing some of the debate with regards to the conclusions drawn from the hypoid bone...

http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Publications/ZooGoer/1995/6/firstwords.cfm

fascinating. I wonder if this may indicate that precursor hominids to both humans and neanderthals engaged in vocal speech, or at least vocal speech of the type an infant is capable of.

John Hewitt

7th December 2006, 05:39 PM

Do you mind sharing your top 3 of those dozens of speculative explanations? I'm honestly curious, and can't come up with any off the top of my head besides random genetic drift or some type of arbitrary founder effect.
Besides speech itself, one other human vocalization that might have driven changes in our voicebox could have been laughter.

Dave1001

7th December 2006, 05:50 PM

Do you mind sharing your top 3 of those dozens of speculative explanations? I'm honestly curious, and can't come up with any off the top of my head besides random genetic drift or some type of arbitrary founder effect.

Besides speech itself, one other human vocalization that might have driven changes in our voicebox could have been laughter.

Please elaborate on that for me? My understanding is that non-human chimps laugh, and what do you think might have been the selective advantage of an ability to laugh over a wide range of vocalizations?

supercorgi

7th December 2006, 06:04 PM

Babies under a year of age are not eating meat off the bone. Using anthropologic data, they were likely nursed well past that age.

Linda
I may be missing something here, but a lot of choking is due to liquid consumption. How do I know this? My dad was in a nursing home for years. He couldn't swallow well and all of his liquids had to be thickened to reduce the choking possibility. Also all his food had to be blended. So anything too liquidy or too solid can cause choking.

Of course, this really has no bearing on the disadvantage or advantage of a hyoid bone.

Silly Green Monkey

7th December 2006, 06:40 PM

Canines do show sexual dimorphism.

I've read, though not recently, that infants do not have the same risk of choking that older humans do. It was claimed that their trachea stuck out into their pharynx, allowing milk to flow around it.

CapelDodger

7th December 2006, 06:58 PM

Going back earlier to H habilus we see that they appear to have a well developed Broca's area which is associated with speech - and this same area also appears on the H erectus cranium of KNM-WT *(a 12year old's skull dating 1.2million years) However it has been argued that the muscle control necessary for the fine regulation of respiration in human speech was absent in this specimen. It would seem as though h erectus had the ability to produce a range of sounds in the context of social interaction (eg. anger, desire) - but a limited range when compared to modern humans - and without the grammatical rules allowing for infinite utterances from a finite number of sounds available.
Broca's area may have evolved in the context of sounds and signals. Signals may have been the dominant factor initially.

CapelDodger

7th December 2006, 07:03 PM

Of course, this really has no bearing on the disadvantage or advantage of a hyoid bone.
If the hyoid bone is why we have nursing homes at all, I'd say it's an advantage.

John Hewitt

8th December 2006, 01:34 AM

andyandy

8th December 2006, 02:36 AM

I may be missing something here, but a lot of choking is due to liquid consumption. How do I know this? My dad was in a nursing home for years. He couldn't swallow well and all of his liquids had to be thickened to reduce the choking possibility. Also all his food had to be blended. So anything too liquidy or too solid can cause choking.

Of course, this really has no bearing on the disadvantage or advantage of a hyoid bone.

It would have a bearing on the relative merits of separate or combined respiratory and digestive tracts.....

Dave1001

8th December 2006, 02:39 AM

Please elaborate on that for me? My understanding is that non-human chimps laugh, and what do you think might have been the selective advantage of an ability to laugh over a wide range of vocalizations?

Humour, in general, is unique to humans and is therefore of great theoretical interest in understanding human evolution. It is true that infrahuman primates get excited by joke like events but I do not think they can voice full laughter. Laughter sounds, as we make them, can be voiced or unvoiced, the former involving the voicebox and being found most aesthetically appealing by listeners. Presumably chimps can make some unvoiced laughs.
The coevolution between humour and the more general social knowledge sets that are communicated by speech is evidenced by the fact that there is no locus of humour in the brain - the humour response seems to be distributed across the cortex.

Very interesting, do you have some links for that info? Also, the type of humor you're describing sounds rather complex. One would think that some sort of fairly complex communication would be predeveloped or codeveloped with it. Perhaps not a vocal communication, but at seems at least to me weirdly arbitrary if vocally complex laughter codeveloped with language that was limited to hand and body signals.

*I'm aware this is all speculative, no personal attacks please.

fls

8th December 2006, 02:50 AM

I may be missing something here, but a lot of choking is due to liquid consumption. How do I know this? My dad was in a nursing home for years. He couldn't swallow well and all of his liquids had to be thickened to reduce the choking possibility. Also all his food had to be blended. So anything too liquidy or too solid can cause choking.

That is due to dysfunction which is due to disease. The diseases that affect swallowing (e.g. stroke) mostly occur in the elderly (i.e. don't contribute to selection pressure).

Linda

Dave1001

8th December 2006, 04:33 AM

That is due to dysfunction which is due to disease. The diseases that affect swallowing (e.g. stroke) mostly occur in the elderly (i.e. don't contribute to selection pressure).

Linda

In theory it still could, for the same reason that it an be a selective advantage to have elderly people around past their reproductive years.

fls

8th December 2006, 04:55 AM

In theory it still could, for the same reason that it an be a selective advantage to have elderly people around past their reproductive years.

That theory depends upon elderly people that are fit enough to contribute to care, not elderly people who require care themselves.

ETA: Diseases that commonly affect swallowing will also lead to other problems that are more likely to lead to disability/death. That is, the person who is paralyzed from a stroke will die or require extra care, regardless of whether or not they can swallow without choking. I'm not saying it doesn't make some difference. It's just that looking at it from a medical perspective, it's a minor issue compared to other causes of death/disability. Any pressure against the retention of the changes in the pharynx would be small and indirect, on that basis.

Linda

John Hewitt

8th December 2006, 05:14 AM

Very interesting, do you have some links for that info? Also, the type of humor you're describing sounds rather complex. One would think that some sort of fairly complex communication would be predeveloped or codeveloped with it. Perhaps not a vocal communication, but at seems at least to me weirdly arbitrary if vocally complex laughter codeveloped with language that was limited to hand and body signals.

*I'm aware this is all speculative, no personal attacks please.
I am not quite sure why you think those comments are speculative, they do not seem particularly so.

Julian Huxley once published an essay called "The Uniqueness of Man" which included a list of the biological traits that seemed unique to humans. Humour was on his list - as were sexuality, longevity and the great size of culture. Humour is one of the least well interpeted of the traits he listed but one does want to interpret it in terms of cultural evolution, which contains a large element of linguistic evolution and is why this topic has figured in my own thinking.

My own approach to this is given in
http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk/humour.htm

There are references in there.

For the aesthetic appreciation of voiced laughter you might look at this link

http://exploration.vanderbilt.edu/news/news_laughter.htm

I would speculate that one could extend that correlation between aesthetic appreciation and voicing by suggesting that laughter in the form of derision might often be unvoiced. I will ask people about that.

I do not have a reference about humour and the cortex. It is something I specifically asked Ruch about a couple of years ago and that was his answer.

Dave1001

8th December 2006, 06:36 AM

I am not quite sure why you think those comments are speculative, they do not seem particularly so.

Julian Huxley once published an essay called "The Uniqueness of Man" which included a list of the biological traits that seemed unique to humans. Humour was on his list - as were sexuality, longevity and the great size of culture. Humour is one of the least well interpeted of the traits he listed but one does want to interpret it in terms of cultural evolution, which contains a large element of linguistic evolution and is why this topic has figured in my own thinking.

My own approach to this is given in
http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk/humour.htm

There are references in there.

For the aesthetic appreciation of voiced laughter you might look at this link

http://exploration.vanderbilt.edu/news/news_laughter.htm

I would speculate that one could extend that correlation between aesthetic appreciation and voicing by suggesting that laughter in the form of derision might often be unvoiced. I will ask people about that.

I do not have a reference about humour and the cortex. It is something I specifically asked Ruch about a couple of years ago and that was his answer.

Very impressive educational background by the way:

http://freespace.virgin.net/john.hewitt1/pg_pref.htm#pr3

In another thread it would be interesting to hear more about your experiences in science and academia: it seems like some unfortunate things may have happened during the course of your career?

drkitten

8th December 2006, 07:58 AM

Do you mind sharing your top 3 of those dozens of speculative explanations? I'm honestly curious, and can't come up with any off the top of my head besides random genetic drift or some type of arbitrary founder effect.

Another theory that has been proposed is sexual selection for vocalization quality -- this is supported by the sexual dimorphism in voices that andyandy described. (Any time you have sexual dimorphism, look for sexual selection as an explanation.)

Another odd theory that I've seen is that it originated with the development of kissing as mating behavior.

And then of course there are the classic non-explanatory explanations like "genetic drift" or "founder effect" or "God wanted it that way" or "things just happen, the hell with it."

drkitten

8th December 2006, 08:22 AM

That theory depends upon elderly people that are fit enough to contribute to care, not elderly people who require care themselves.

Doesn't follow, I'm afraid.

Even elderly people who require physical care may still be able to contribute knowledge and experience to the tribe. I may not be able to walk any more or to chew my own food, but if I'm still the best flint-knapper in the tribe, it might be worth your while to drag me around with you until you've got sixty years experience yourself....

Roboramma

8th December 2006, 08:43 AM

Doesn't follow, I'm afraid.

Even elderly people who require physical care may still be able to contribute knowledge and experience to the tribe. I may not be able to walk any more or to chew my own food, but if I'm still the best flint-knapper in the tribe, it might be worth your while to drag me around with you until you've got sixty years experience yourself....

To add to this, I remember in one of Jared Diamond's books (I think it was Why is Sex Fun? but I may be misremembering) he described how, while he was studying birds in New Guinea, he would often ask the local people about the plants in the area. Apparently, the men he asked often knew enough to tell him about the plants, but when they encountered something they didn't know, they'd go and ask the old man (or woman, can't recall) of their tribe. He/she knew not just the names of obscure plants, but also their properties, such as what plants could be eaten in times of famine when the usual plants that made up their diet weren't available. (For instance, after a natural disaster, or a major drought, I guess).

Being the only living person to have lived through the last major disaster, and thus remembering how your people did it the last time, can be very valuable.

drkitten

8th December 2006, 08:54 AM

To add to this, I remember in one of Jared Diamond's books (I think it was Why is Sex Fun? but I may be misremembering) he described how, while he was studying birds in New Guinea, he would often ask the local people about the plants in the area. Apparently, the men he asked often knew enough to tell him about the plants, but when they encountered something they didn't know, they'd go and ask the old man (or woman, can't recall) of their tribe. He/she knew not just the names of obscure plants, but also their properties, such as what plants could be eaten in times of famine when the usual plants that made up their diet weren't available. (For instance, after a natural disaster, or a major drought, I guess).

Being the only living person to have lived through the last major disaster, and thus remembering how your people did it the last time, can be very valuable.

The problem with this particular story, though, is that the value of the old men (and women) may or may not be language dependent. In particulular, "they'd go and ask the old man."

Would the old man's knowledge and experience be as valuable in a prelingual environment?

This might be the sort of question that could shed light on the time frame of the emergency of language; if we can agree, for instance, that elderly people are only useful if they can talk, then signs that sickly elders were taken care of instead of abandoned on ice flows would be a strong indicator that the group had language.

Alternatively, if sickly elders are still useful in an environment without language --- maybe he can't tell you which plants are edible, but he can show you? -- then we have another idea about why and how language evolved.

fls

8th December 2006, 09:14 AM

Doesn't follow, I'm afraid.

Even elderly people who require physical care may still be able to contribute knowledge and experience to the tribe. I may not be able to walk any more or to chew my own food, but if I'm still the best flint-knapper in the tribe, it might be worth your while to drag me around with you until you've got sixty years experience yourself....

I'm not denying that. The suggestion has been made that the structure of the pharynx is so disadvantageous that it would not be retained unless there was a corresponding benefit. I am suggesting that in most cases it would be neutral or at best a weak effect, as it is rare as a cause of death. It is most often an issue in those people fortunate enough to live to an old age, when disease and degeneration near the end of life lead to faulty control of the muscles and to aspiration. They are probably not in a good condition to relay additional knowledge and experience at that point, anyway. So it doesn't seem like a few less weeks of life would make a difference to the survival of their offspring.

Linda

Eternal Gaijin

8th December 2006, 09:18 AM

Precisely. Variation has been slowed simply by the prevalence of the written word.
I'd add that increased levels of literacy have helped with that.
There's strong tendency to think that the written form of the language is more correct or proper than spoken; correlating with that is pressure to norm spoken language towards the 'more proper' written usage. This has affected pronunciation at times.
Witness the hoo-haw every year when the OED adds or drops a couple of words and the Language Mavens crawl out of the woodwork to decry it as a sign of the linguistic apocalypse.

andyandy

8th December 2006, 01:08 PM

I'd add that increased levels of literacy have helped with that.
There's strong tendency to think that the written form of the language is more correct or proper than spoken; correlating with that is pressure to norm spoken language towards the 'more proper' written usage. This has affected pronunciation at times.
Witness the hoo-haw every year when the OED adds or drops a couple of words and the Language Mavens crawl out of the woodwork to decry it as a sign of the linguistic apocalypse.

welcome to the board - you've spent time in Japan perhaps? ;)

CapelDodger

9th December 2006, 06:00 PM

That theory depends upon elderly people that are fit enough to contribute to care, not elderly people who require care themselves.
I think we'd agree that their contribution on balance is the relevant factor. They might require some care themselves, such as having food fetched to them, but they can still watch the kids and keep the fire lit and cook and make things.

Language tips the balance towards longer lives but I can't see it as being a major factor in the evolution of language. I'm sure that was driven by the central, active, prime-of-life stuff.

fls

9th December 2006, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by fls
That theory depends upon elderly people that are fit enough to contribute to care, not elderly people who require care themselves.

I think we'd agree that their contribution on balance is the relevant factor. They might require some care themselves, such as having food fetched to them, but they can still watch the kids and keep the fire lit and cook and make things.

Language tips the balance towards longer lives but I can't see it as being a major factor in the evolution of language. I'm sure that was driven by the central, active, prime-of-life stuff.

My comment was directed at the strength of the disadvantages of throat structure, not the advantages of language.

Linda

Dave1001

10th December 2006, 01:03 AM

And then of course there are the classic non-explanatory explanations like "genetic drift" or "founder effect" or "God wanted it that way" or "things just happen, the hell with it."

Are genetic drift and founder effect ever verifiable/falsifiable as explanations for things? It's hard for me to see how genetic drift ever is, although didn't someone win a nobel prize for demonstrating its existence?

As for founder effect, I notice it's frequently described in authoritative terms as the reason for various haplogroup differentiations. Was that conclusion come to using solid empiricism, or is it more of a "God wanted it that way" type explanatory placeholder.

Dave1001

10th December 2006, 01:06 AM

The problem with this particular story, though, is that the value of the old men (and women) may or may not be language dependent. In particulular, "they'd go and ask the old man."

Would the old man's knowledge and experience be as valuable in a prelingual environment?

This might be the sort of question that could shed light on the time frame of the emergency of language; if we can agree, for instance, that elderly people are only useful if they can talk, then signs that sickly elders were taken care of instead of abandoned on ice flows would be a strong indicator that the group had language.

Alternatively, if sickly elders are still useful in an environment without language --- maybe he can't tell you which plants are edible, but he can show you? -- then we have another idea about why and how language evolved.

great insight.

Dave1001

10th December 2006, 01:07 AM

I'm not denying that. The suggestion has been made that the structure of the pharynx is so disadvantageous that it would not be retained unless there was a corresponding benefit. I am suggesting that in most cases it would be neutral or at best a weak effect, as it is rare as a cause of death. It is most often an issue in those people fortunate enough to live to an old age, when disease and degeneration near the end of life lead to faulty control of the muscles and to aspiration. They are probably not in a good condition to relay additional knowledge and experience at that point, anyway. So it doesn't seem like a few less weeks of life would make a difference to the survival of their offspring.

Linda

Can you provide a source for this information? Or is it in your area of expertise? I'm curious because you're presenting it rather authoratively.

Dave1001

10th December 2006, 01:10 AM

I'm sure that was driven by the central, active, prime-of-life stuff.

Why are you so sure? I can see both cases. Either that it was driven by prime-of-life communication, for example while engaging in active competition with other life, or that it was driven by wisdom maintenance and relation across generations (of course both and neither are also options).

fls

10th December 2006, 03:47 AM

Can you provide a source for this information? Or is it in your area of expertise? I'm curious because you're presenting it rather authoratively.

Here is a source (http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html) of information about causes of death. "Unintentional suffocation" is the relevant category.

This is in my area of expertise (physician).

Linda

Dave1001

10th December 2006, 03:52 AM

Here is a source (http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html) of information about causes of death. "Unintentional suffocation" is the relevant category.

This is in my area of expertise (physician).

Linda

okay, thanks doc.:)

CapelDodger

10th December 2006, 05:19 PM

Why are you so sure? I can see both cases. Either that it was driven by prime-of-life communication, for example while engaging in active competition with other life, or that it was driven by wisdom maintenance and relation across generations (of course both and neither are also options).
Language is a very special adaptation, involving inter-locking physical adaptations in the throat and chest as well as co-ordinated changes in the brain. It evolved very quickly, which to me says it was driven in the powerhouse of the economy, not the legacy end of things. That means the young, active, breeding and feeding focus of what was always a small population.

I personally favour the idea that Homo first developed a fairly sophisticated sign-language - including the brain areas involved - with vocalisation as at best secondary. Manual dexterity preceded vocal dexterity, after all. Changing lifestyles, with the hands more generally engaged in things, might have favoured the switch to vocalisation as the prime means. And we still talk with our hands.

Loss Leader

10th December 2006, 05:51 PM

I'm sorry, I haven't read the entire thread but I did search and this book has not been mentioned: The Unfolding of Language by Dr. Guy Deutcher. (more here) (http://www.unfoldingoflanguage.com/)

This was a tremendous book about the origins, evolution and devolution of language. Professor Deutcher's theories are so elegant that, upon reading, one simply understands that of course he is right. In general, our language is a sandcastle built on a beach of dead metaphors. Something that takes place tomorrow is "ahead" of us because being forward in the future is similar to being forward in space. And something forward in space is "ahead" of us because it is littlerally "at" our "head". And it kleeps going back from there.

The book doesn't get back before h. sapiens, though. So, if you're looking for a book that describes the evolution of language from 2 million to 100,000 years ago, this isn't the text.

drkitten

11th December 2006, 08:08 AM

Are genetic drift and founder effect ever verifiable/falsifiable as explanations for things?

Sure. Look at the history of hemophilia among 19th Century European royalty. Classic example of the "founder effect."

"Genetic drift" is also easily observable in the lab. I don't think that Motoo Kimura won the Nobel Prize for it (my understanding is that he is/was a mathematician, not a biologist), but it's certainly "real science."

andyandy

11th December 2006, 04:49 PM

Schneibster

11th December 2006, 08:28 PM

Now, I don't have much here- but it is tantalizing to me that a whole bunch of languages, those spoken in fact by a large majority of the people on Earth, seems to come from two distinct roots. I am only aware of the language tree that springs from "Proto-Indo-European," but from what is left out of that tree, it is obvious to me that there must be another great tree that resulted in Chinese and related tonal languages, and I little doubt that there must at one time have been another that resulted in the New World native languages (although I suppose it is possible that these evolved from the same roots as Chinese, considering the migration(s?) across the Bering land-bridge). It is interesting as well to me to consider whether there might be other "root" languages that linguists might be able to identify by various characteristics.

I think that this route of inquiry might yield some interesting material vis-a-vis Dave's original question. I'm going to do some research, and I'll see what I come back with.

Schneibster

11th December 2006, 08:41 PM

Well, interesting. Looks like there are major divisions I didn't think of- for example, Africa has a couple-three (depending who you talk to) and Australia shares some signature characteristics with the Polynesian languages. Southeast Asia appears to be the most linguistically diverse in terms of really basic languages, probably mostly because no single group was ever able to conquer it all.

There's a lot to be had in the "Language family" article in Wikipedia. It looks like a pretty deep subject to me. I think that there was a lot of evolution of language's ability to express more and more interesting concepts, over and above the original evolution of the ability of humans to use language in the first place.

Roboramma

11th December 2006, 11:04 PM

i find it fascinating how little language has evolved over the past 5000 years - given that the shift from hunter gatherer to farmer was only c.10,000 years ago and accounting for the fundamental societial and technological changes during that period i was initially rather surprised to find something like the Epics of Gilgamesh quite so readible. That it still makes a good story today seems indicitive (to me) of the robustness of language as a human trait.....

you can read it here (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Epic_of_Gilgamesh)
But you read a translation, correct?
Given that, it's not language that hasn't evolved much in that time, but the ideas that it seeks to represent. Human beings haven't changed much, even if our languages, technologies, and ways of making a living have.

drkitten

12th December 2006, 08:44 AM

But you read a translation, correct?
Given that, it's not language that hasn't evolved much in that time, but the ideas that it seeks to represent.

Yup. And, of course, part of the task of a translator is to find a way to make the ideas that are represented understandable and interesting to the new audience, to the point of completely retelling and restructuring the story if necessary.

So what you're admiring is not even the ideas, but the translator's skill at modernizing them.

andyandy

12th December 2006, 08:57 AM

Yup. And, of course, part of the task of a translator is to find a way to make the ideas that are represented understandable and interesting to the new audience, to the point of completely retelling and restructuring the story if necessary.

So what you're admiring is not even the ideas, but the translator's skill at modernizing them.

yes, it would depend on how accurately we can translate cuneiform...

it's true, that even today we have a huge disjiont between certain languages....to translate between Japanese and English, one has to do so paragraph by paragraph, taking in all the information and then more or less completely re-interpreting what the author meant.

whereas other more closely related languages don't require such creativity of interpretation....

if i remember rightly, for this reason whilst it would take on average of 6 months to translate a book from English to Spanish, it would take 12 months for the same translation into Japanese....