Lots of animals make noise; much of it even conveys information. But for sheer complexity, for developed syntax and grammar, and for the ability to articulate abstract concepts, you can’t beat human speech. MIT linguist Noam Chomsky and Harvard experimental psychologist Steven Pinker say it’s genetic. Pinker theorizes that language emerged about 200,000 years ago, when early humans who were efficient communicators were more likely to pass on their genes. (Less-than-efficient communicators were more likely to scream incoherently - instead of imparting an escape plan - before being devoured by a saber-toothed tiger.) A little more evidence: People with particular genetic defects have specific difficulties with speech and grammar.
Other scientists argue that spoken words are actually an outgrowth of other human skills, such as planning, memory, and logic. “There is no ‘language gene,’” says Luc Steels, a computer scientist at the Free University of Brussels in Belgium. “Language was a cultural breakthrough, like writing.” Steels built robots with a set of general intelligence traits but without a language module in their software, and they developed grammar and syntax systems similar to those of human language.
Blame neuroscientists for the controversy. The parts of the brain thought to be responsible for language are as well - understood as the rest of the brain, which is to say: not so much.
To elaborate and clarify; language in it self is not genetic but a device within the brain capable of producing and understanding language is (often called the "Language Aquisition Device"). The "LAD", with the right environment, will provide a "Faculty of language". This "FL" will contain the syntax and gramar of any language a human is exposed to. Human beings devoid of human contact will not learn a human language. This has a certain bearing on the genetic component of language aquication; a good genetic foundation will provide a base for good communication. The communication in it self is a social and cultural fenomenon. The emphasis on the genetic component of human language is often misunderstood to mean that languages are inherited within the brain. This is not the case. Languages exists primarily in a cultural environment; but our brains evolve to handle the rate and complexity of the languages "d'jour". Any human from any part of the planet are capable of learning any language; this fact lends credit to the assumption that languages are indeed something living in systems within the brain. The sheer complexity of human language is way too high to be a bi-product of the other mental faculties; if it were not we would have made talking computer programs already and "artificial intelligence" would be a "walk in the park".
Return to Big Questions: http://www.wired.com/42
A link of interest:
http://www.feralchildren.com/en/index.php
The majority of children who were completely without human contact were severely impaired in several areas, including speech. This suggests that speech and language are learned, not contained in some sort of racial memory.
contributed by on Jan 24 10:06am
Language is actually devolving. Studies show that languages were more complex/rich thousands of years ago.
That's interesting. Do you have a link to those studies?
contributed by on Jan 24 2:03pm
Some could say that "devolving" of language is an actual evolution. If a languauge becomes less complex it may be getting rid of unecessary components, thus making a better language.
contributed by on Jan 24 2:25pm
Maybe as information goes global and the world becomes smaller, so to is language going global. Wouldn't it be interesting if we all eventually spoke the same language?
contributed by on Feb 1 2:24pm
2 Words can prove that the English language is devolving.
Chat. Speak.
contributed by on Feb 7 4:49am
"Devolving of language" is actually an illusion. It is just a streamlining of our language structures so that we can handle more complex or abstract ideas, and so that we can communicate more efficiently.
contributed by on Feb 9 1:51am
On Protolanguages
The entire topic is related to the idea of proto-languages. That is, it has been proposed that all languages have evolved from a single language (much in the same way we evolved from a single primate). See for example the late Sergei Starostin's work:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Starostin
Parallel Evolutionary Trees
There have been studies showing that one can use sequencing analysis on the frequency of vowels vs consonants and other grammar aspects the same way DNA analysis on base pairs is used to derive an evolutionary tree. And it turns out that the two trees are remarkably similar/match one another. For sample linguistic tree, see the Classification Browser in the Rosetta Project by the Long Now Foundation out of Stanford:
http://www.rosettaproject.org/
On Evolution and Devolution
It could be argued that evolution is means neither greater richness nor greater efficiency, but greater adaptibility. Have you ever wondered why most languages (with some notable exceptions of English and some Finno-Ugric languages) have male and female genders for inanimate objects? A table is 'une table', not 'un table' in French (it's female), but I have inspected every table I've ever come across and never noticed any visible signs of femininity on any of them. So languages like French, Dutch, Russian and German where 'rich' in these types of exceptions, but it has not led to their greater adaptibility vis-a-vis, say, English.
Street Language
If you take this type of evolution to its natural conclusion, it could be argued that languages today only evolve in the Ghetto in the form of the 'street language'. That is, the next linguistic evolutionary steps in English, as Ali G rightly points out, may well be saying "You is there". For, there is no reason why there should multiple conjugations for verbs in English when you think about it. It's not proper, but it seems definitely to be simpler.
Imitation and Viral Languages
I think the key thing to language evolution and acceptance is the ease at which it can be imitated. Languages (as in almost everything in human cognition) are learned by imitation. The simpler the language, the more easily it can be imitated and the more easily it will spread. English can be considered a 'viral' language in this particular sense.
_contributed by on Feb 9 4:16am_
An interesting feature of language is that from a finite set of rules and symbols, an infinite number of well-formed statements can be created and (hopefully) understood. Ludwig von Bertalanffy was inclined to discuss language in terms of this feature, suggesting that human language ought to be distinguished from animal communication insofar as humans have the ability to construct new symbols.
However, the origin of human language may not have been a strictly human affair. There is sound evidence that Neandertals learned to make and use Homo Sapiens's tools. Since whales are known to communicate using elaborate syntactical systems (and were once land mammals: whales have a pelvis, and you don't get a pelvis unless you have legs...) and nonhuman primates (which also use tools) can learn sign language, it would seem worthwhile to consider the possibility that human language did not evolve in isolation, but possibly through mimicking and expounding upon the behavior of other animals with which our ancestors came into contact.
A trimming down of language does not mean devolution. Algorithmic information theory posits that the complexity of a some piece of information ought to be evaluated in terms of the shortest possible description that can be used to recreate one's original data. This is the basis of data compression algorithms like LZW and ZIP, and current research in cognitive science suggests that similar mechanism are involved in memory and communication. Following from Zenon Pylyshyn's assertion that computation is a fundamental cosmological process, of which cognition is only one example, Stephen Wolfram's discussion of "Computational Equivalence" suggests that language may be a by-product of genetics itself, more than of any particular set of genes.
Another possibility involves research into what is called the "mirror neuron system," which may become very relevant to discussions of language acquisition; the discovery of similar neuron systems in whales, dolphins, and nonhuman primates may hold imporant clues to the origin and evolution of language as we know it.
contributed by on Feb 9 5:57am
"The sheer complexity of human language is way too high to be a bi-product of the other mental faculties; if it were not we would have made talking computer programs already and 'artificial intelligence' would be a 'walk in the park'"
Not if pedagogy dictates that researchers start with flawed premises. I think Mark Tilden's robotics provide an interesting illustration of how novel problem-solving approaches to "intelligent" system design can do things that decades of cumuulative research find difficult. Although it could be argued that such novelty would not arise in the absence of pegagogy...
contributed by on Feb 9 6:09am
Just to note that the "languages are getting simpler" trope is a common creationist/biblical literalist claim. The idea being that languages were perfect at Babel and degraded thereafter. See Mark Isaak's Index to Creationist CLaims.
contributed by on Feb 9 6:52am
It seems to me that language is a property that emerges from the interaction of several complex systems within the human mind, but I wonder if there is an instinct to speak that causes these systems to be utilized in this particular way. As an interaction of several complex systems, I think the rules that dictate the changes which language undergoes would themselves be changing all the time. While it may be that first causes are fun to discuss and theorize, but they are ultimately inconclusive, as someone in the "Is Time an Illusion?" discussion said, I cannot resist the temptation (indeed it may be just as inconclusive to speculate about the operant conditions under which language evolved, perhaps we might miss a key factor that our current linguistic ecology obscures or is lacking).
Nonetheless, what I mean about an "instinct to speak" is not necessarily a need or drive to communicate, but more a drive to ex-press, i.e. to discharge a build up of mental/physical excitation. For instance, if I smash my head on something, even if there is no one around, I am likely to make a sound or two (perhaps even some rather colorful expletives). Why? It doesn't make the pain go away. (Or does it somehow make me feel better, some sort of chemical reaction perhaps?) I would theorize (working from my limited knowledge of Freud, oooh I bet I just lost some interest) that the expression somehow returns the spike in excitation to the homeostatic state that the mind (and the body) tries to maintain. If there is this tendency to express, eventually these highly personal sounds that have meaning to only one person in a particular circumstance would have been overheard by another (or several), then the two people (or more) can collectively reference these sounds as being attached to a specific type of action or object. But that's just a guess.
Perhaps a way of testing this hypothesis could involve these children who are devoid of contact with other humans, and who do not develop "human" speech. Do they still develop their own language? I mean, do they babble or just remain mute? I would guess that they babble, and while this may not have any "meaning" in the social sense, it may indeed have meaning to the particular consciousness that is emitting the sounds -- of course it is impossible to tell, b/c to communicate this meaning necessitates a shared language. Perhaps someone has tried to analyze the sounds that I suspect these children make for patterns that repeat, which would seem to open up the possibility of a unique language, and have found nothing. Does anyone know? Cursory inspection of the feral children website seems to indicate that there is some innate human ability for even these socially deprived children to learn the rules and content of language, but that still does not answer why they desire or do learn it, and hence the question of "where does language come from?" is still as opaque as ever.
To try to rein myself in and get back to the actual question that was asked: if there is indeed some need/desire/drive to expostulate due to mental/physical excitation, it would seem that the rules for language development would have to be primarily a matter of consensus. As was stated in the discussion starter, it seems the ability to readily process language and communicate quickly was selected for in the much harsher environment of days long past. The changing rules would seem to depend then on the environment in question and what is learned and accepted as representing certain concepts and objects therein. Hmmm, I guess the mutablity of language depends on whether or not the new words and procedures are useful enough to beneficially affect common parlance and a shared body of knowledge either in extending content or improving access to old content. If something is of use, it sticks. Now, the question of use and what is the critical mass of users that determines whether a word or new syntax rule is "permanently" incorporated into a language is a whole other question.
~Gordo
contributed by on Feb 9 7:36am
An interesting feature of language is that from a finite set of rules and symbols, an infinite number of well-formed statements can be created and (hopefully) understood.
Indeed, for certain types of language generation, AI is already 'walk in the park' as proved by the famous Social Text or Sokal Affair and the Post-Modernist Generator:
Try hitting refresh and you notice that you can generate liberal-arts college essays in social studies or cultural cricism ad infinitum with a couple of hundred (or thousand) lines of computer code. An interesting web-based application that provides a glimpse into generative grammars.
_contributed by on Feb 9 8:41am_
In December I had a major seizure and took severe blows to my head. One of the hits occurred on the left temple area. I developed a speech impediment because of it. Although it is vanishing, my neurosurgeon said the swelling to my left side explained the speech problems. So I believe that if there is a verbal area in the brain, then it is genetic (but must be cultured).
contributed by on Feb 9 9:12am
The evolutionary advantages of communication over non-communication are clear- but human language is not the only way to communicate, and I argue that it is NOT the most complex. Bacteria have a complex 'language' which is explored in the new area of quorum sensing- where bacteria use chemistry to communicate a wide array of factors- most of which we still don't understand or know what they are saying.
As mentioned above cetaceans (whales, dolphins) have very complex vocalizations and even body language. There are studies with dolphins that show they can communicate vast amounts of information far faster than we can speak. For example we still don't know how they communicate with each other to synchronize various actions performed everyday in popular shows.
Mammals tend to be very acoustical in nature, (bats, whales, humans) but speaking is not the only way to speak -so to speak.
contributed by on Feb 9 11:12am
right but the question is "how does human language evolve?" I think Mr. McGee makes a valid point in that we are omitting language that is not articulated through speech and understood aurally. What about body language? Does it transfer between cultures? I am unaware of any studies, although I am nearly certain that they exist. Most of my reading these days is limited to literature, criticism and theory.
I would be willing to bet that some body language does transfer, facial expressions perhaps. Is there a culture where a smile does not indicate happy? Hmmm...how do infants learn to smile? How do they learn that it is a "good" thing, or rather how do they associate the smile with good feelings? Through the cooing and tone of voice a parent exhibits while interacting with the baby? Does anybody out there know anything about body language and whether/how it crosses cultural boundaries?
contributed by on Feb 9 12:17pm
Aside from turning this into a religious debate, the writings of different cultures have many differing things to say about the start of language. Some concur that there was one original language that later became others (trying to be as pc as possible). Many say that it was one teacher that brought language and writing to different peoples (i.e. Hermes in Greece, Thoth in Egypt, Cush in Canaan, Quetzalcoatl in South America, Dagon in the Fertile Crescent). The stories are strikingly similar and though many will say there was some sort of contamination of the stories, that’s exactly the point. They have a common origin.
Aside from literary history and myth, linguists, as we know, group languages into many different categories that ultimately have there roots in a minute few in comparison. Just a few: Akkaidian, Hebrew; Assyrio-Babylonian. As some have noted already, as we travel back in time, the languages get more and more complex. In fact, we can see that not only the words are abstract in comparison, but the thought process as well. For example, as brought out in The Power of Babel: A Natural History of Language, by John McWhorter, it’s brought out that the simple word “trespass” in English (obviously) has a compound translation in German. In order to convey the idea to a German mind, they use a term that roughly translates to “house-peace-breakage”.
Interestingly enough, the reason that many cultures give as the reason for the many languages is for the purpose of “confusing mankind”. Not only that they would speak differently, but think differently as well. Hence, the ‘hotly’ disputed definition of the word “babel” being “confusion”.
contributed by on Feb 9 12:35pm
In response to your comment, Gordon:
Though I hate making vague citations of studies without a source, I've read that our muscles have a direct connection with chemical release. For example, when we smile certain chemicals (Possibly endorphins. I forget what was said.) are released to encourage a euphoric state. With that in mind, it seems this particular universal gesture that isn’t bound by culture.
contributed by on Feb 9 1:41pm
The structure and grammar of English has been getting simpler over the fast few hundred years. I would say this is evolution, not devolution, although fans of flowery language might disagree. At the same time, the vocabulary continues to grow. The discussion we are having here would not have been possible with the English of two hundred years ago.
Now, if only we could simplify spelling...
contributed by on Feb 9 2:04pm
Most of these comments seem to be dealing with the written or spoken word. But there is another form of "language" and that is sign language. I have even read that some theorize that humans developed sign language first and it was only after our vocal control became sophisticated enough that we evolved the spoken word. Also, I think of language as a tool. So the idea of it devolving is ridiculous. Tools change as our needs and knowledge changes. But I don't think that makes them better or worse.
contributed by on Feb 9 2:15pm
Being a total novice, I'm not burdened by the well-trodden arguments, so here goes. I had the thought that as humans developed more nuanced speech, the ability to label complex concepts also developed. This made thinking about more abstract ideas easier. Since the once complex concepts could be "stored" in the language and in shared understanding, the cortex was freed up to develop higher and higher level abstractions.
In Jeff Hawkins's memory prediction framework, the brain uses lower level layers to store simpler concepts which are referred to by the higher levels in order to create progressively more abstract thought (presumably making us more and more adaptable and so passing along these traits and continuing the trend). The higher layers of the cortex have evolved substantially more complex in humans than in other mammals. I'm suggesting that early humans' ability to create (and then recreate) more complex sounds led to the abillity to articulate more a more detailed view of the world. When others in the tribe developed a shared understanding, the ideas were in effect "stored". In turn this let us stop using all our mental effort holding these ideas in consciousness, instead turning that grey matter towards stringing together the now understood ideas into new and bigger ideas. Subsequently, the development and mastery of soundmaking led to a greater capacity to develop multiform language including the written word, music, visual art. All of these languages extend our minds beyond our heads by holding the current understanding of the world in shared "memory" letting us concentrate on the next big idea.
contributed by on Feb 9 10:23pm
Here's a novel theory: James Pennebaker showed that expressing traumatic events makes one physically healthier. So extrapolating backwards before language, assuming the Pennebaker effect would still hold, expressive behaviors would result in increased biological fitness. This might be too subtle of an effect, except if sexual selection started operating - an early person would observe that someone using expressive behavior was a bit healthier, thus more attractive.
One problem with this theory is that we're still not good at expressing traumatic stuff. There's no real baseline, but 200,000 years is an awful long time for us to still be unexpressive about trauma.
contributed by on Feb 10 3:27pm
While the study of feral children (children who pass the window of opportunity to learn a langauge due to a lack of social contact with other humans) is interesting, another interesting data point in all of this is the fact that when multiple children in Nicaragua were left alone without being taught any language, they invented their own.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3662928.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Sign_Language
While speech and language are learned and not contained in some sort of racial memory, the drive to communicate--even to the point of spontaneously creating a brand new sign language out of thin air--does seem genetically determined.
contributed by on Feb 11 2:24pm
The 'language gene' thesis is bunkum. The human brain is not a 'machine,' nor is it a 'computer' or 'computational device'. These are analogies (or conceptual metaphors) that are intended to seem coherent to us for the purposes of explanation. The 'language gene' idea (at its most 'devolved') is that there is a crucial part (like a graphic accelerator or video card) that is responsible for 'producing' or 'enabling' language. The problem with machine or gene based explanations is that in the last two decades of empirical research (from fMRI scans and the like) there has been no, repeat no, evidence. Just like there is no 'God spot' or 'addiction centre.'
The brain functions as a whole. With this in mind (pardon the pun), the most 'exciting' ideas about the origins of language, its role and nature has come from the 'connectionist' theorists. I highly recommend looking at George Lakoff’s work for a great introduction to this school of thought, in particular his books “Philosophy of the Flesh” (1999) and “Where Mathematics Came From” (2000).
In both books, Lakoff offers a lucid refutation of both Pinker and Chomsky.
I'm not sure where these ideas of language getting simpler comes from. I think people make the mistake of equating complexity with endings. 'Must' has no endings but is grammatically very complex: 'he must be out', 'He must go', 'He must have gone' etc. English speakers think French is tricky in that we have to choose Le or La. Not realising that that choice is trivial compared with the complexity of 'un' vs. 'le' or 'a' vs 'the'. Something Japanese learners of English often never master.
There's also the danger that when you try to talk about complexity about language, that languages start to get ranked in complexity with its attendant dangers of racial/social superiority.
_contributed by on Feb 11 8:07pm_
Chomsky's ideas on language are a lot more complex than the main article proposes. Yes, human's are genetically desposed to have language. And a "Language Faculty" is in the brain; but, there must be an environmental "trigger" (sound in voice, movement in sign) to enable its use. The Faculty of Language is different from the outward manifestation of language--the idea of "I" or internal language and "E" or external language is key to Chomsky's Minimalist Programme. The programme does not focus on external language except to prove certain facts about the internal faculty.
Consider the idea of "Poverty of Stimulus," whereby a finite amount of information is needed to create an infinite variety of sentences. Mark Baker, in his book The Atoms of Language, outlines a series of parameters that point to a small set of internal rules, appliedin varying degrees, can create a rich and complex variety of languages and usage.
It is this idea of simplicity that AI lacks, besides the notion that computers block out stimulus where the brain as a whole actually invites all sorts of stimulus.
contributed by on Feb 12 8:03am
So how does this parrot fit into the language picture (from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3430481.stm)?
The finding of a parrot with an almost unparalleled power to communicate with people has brought scientists up short.
The bird, a captive African grey called N'kisi, has a vocabulary of 950 words, and shows signs of a sense of humour.
He invents his own words and phrases if he is confronted with novel ideas with which his existing repertoire cannot cope - just as a human child would do.
N'kisi's remarkable abilities feature in the latest BBC Wildlife Magazine.
N'kisi is believed to be one of the most advanced users of human language in the animal world.
About 100 words are needed for half of all reading in English, so if N'kisi could read he would be able to cope with a wide range of material.
Polished wordsmith
He uses words in context, with past, present and future tenses, and is often inventive.
One N'kisi-ism was "flied" for "flew", and another "pretty smell medicine" to describe the aromatherapy oils used by his owner, an artist based in New York.
When he first met Dr Jane Goodall, the renowned chimpanzee expert, after seeing her in a picture with apes, N'kisi said: "Got a chimp?"
School's in: He is a willing learner
He appears to fancy himself as a humourist. When another parrot hung upside down from its perch, he commented: "You got to put this bird on the camera."
Dr Goodall says N'kisi's verbal fireworks are an "outstanding example of interspecies communication".
In an experiment, the bird and his owner were put in separate rooms and filmed as the artist opened random envelopes containing picture cards.
Analysis showed the parrot had used appropriate keywords three times more often than would be likely by chance.
Captives' frustrations
This was despite the researchers discounting responses like "What ya doing on the phone?" when N'kisi saw a card of a man with a telephone, and "Can I give you a hug?" with one of a couple embracing.
Professor Donald Broom, of the University of Cambridge's School of Veterinary Medicine, said: "The more we look at the cognitive abilities of animals, the more advanced they appear, and the biggest leap of all has been with parrots."
Alison Hales, of the World Parrot Trust, told BBC News Online: "N'kisi's amazing vocabulary and sense of humour should make everyone who has a pet parrot consider whether they are meeting its needs.
"They may not be able to ask directly, but parrots are long-lived, and a bit of research now could mean an improved quality of life for years."
contributed by on Feb 20 5:13pm