The EXISTANCE OF LANUAGES:
The origin of language, its relationship with human evolution, and its consequences
have been subjects of study for centuries. Scholars wishing to study the origins of
language draw inferences from evidence such as the fossil record, archaeological
evidence, and contemporary language diversity. They may also study language
acquisition as well as comparisons between human language and systems of animal
communication (particularly other primates).[1] Many argue for the close relation
between the origins of language and the origins of modern human behavior, but there
is little agreement about the facts and implications of this connection.
The shortage of direct, empirical evidence has caused many scholars to regard the
entire topic as unsuitable for serious study; in 1866, the Linguistic Society of
Paris banned any existing or future debates on the subject, a prohibition which
remained influential across much of the Western world until the late twentieth
century.[2] Various hypotheses have been developed on the emergence of language.[3]
While Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection had provoked a
surge of speculation on the origin of language over a century and a half ago, the
speculations had not resulted in a scientific consensus by 1996.[4] Despite this,
academic interest had returned to the topic by the early 1990s. Linguists,
archaeologists, psychologists, and anthropologists have renewed the investigation
into the origin of language with modern methods.[5]
Approaches
Attempts to explain the origin of language take a variety of forms:[6]
"Continuity theories" build on the idea that language exhibits so much complexity
that one cannot imagine it simply appearing from nothing in its final form;
therefore it must have evolved from earlier pre-linguistic systems among humans'
primate ancestors.
"Discontinuity theories" take the opposite approach, stating that language, as a
unique trait that cannot be compared to anything found among non-humans, must have
appeared fairly suddenly during the course of human evolution.
Some theories consider language mostly as an innate faculty—largely genetically
encoded.
Other theories regard language as a mainly cultural system that is learned through
social interaction.
Most linguistic scholars as of 2024 favor continuity-based theories, but they vary
in how they hypothesize language development.[citation needed] Some among those who
consider language as mostly innate avoid speculating about specific precursors in
non-human primates, stressing simply that the language faculty must have evolved
gradually.[7]
Those who consider language as learned socially, such as Michael Tomasello,
consider it developing from the cognitively controlled aspects of primate
communication, mostly gestural rather than vocal.[8][9] Where vocal precursors are
concerned, many continuity theorists envisage language as evolving from early human
capacities for song.[10][11][12][13]
Noam Chomsky, a proponent of discontinuity theory, argues that a single change
occurred in humans before leaving Africa, coincident with the Great Leap
approximately 100,000 years ago, in which a common language faculty developed in a
group of humans and their descendants. Chomsky bases his argument on the
observation that any human baby of any culture can be raised in a different culture
and will completely assimilate the language and behaviour of the new culture in
which they were raised. This implies that no major change to the human language
faculty has occurred since they left Africa.[14]
Transcending the continuity-versus-discontinuity divide, some scholars view the
emergence of language as the consequence of some kind of social transformation[15]
that, by generating unprecedented levels of public trust, liberated a genetic
potential for linguistic creativity that had previously lain dormant.[16][17][18]
"Ritual/speech coevolution theory" exemplifies this approach.[19][20] Scholars in
this intellectual camp point to the fact that even chimpanzees and bonobos have
latent symbolic capacities that they rarely—if ever—use in the wild.[21] Objecting
to the sudden mutation idea, these authors argue that even if a chance mutation
were to install a language organ in an evolving bipedal primate, it would be
adaptively useless under all known primate social conditions. A very specific
social structure – one capable of upholding unusually high levels of public
accountability and trust – must have evolved before or concurrently with language
to make reliance on "cheap signals" (e.g. words, where no actual resources are
exchanged [22]) an evolutionarily stable strategy.
Since the emergence of language lies so far back in human prehistory, the relevant
developments have left no direct historical traces, and comparable processes cannot
be observed today. Despite this, the emergence of new sign languages in modern
times—Nicaraguan Sign Language, for example—may offer insights into the
developmental stages and creative processes necessarily involved.[23] Another
approach inspects early human fossils, looking for traces of physical adaptation to
language use.[24][25] In some cases, when the DNA of extinct humans can be
recovered, the presence or absence of genes considered to be language-relevant—
FOXP2, for example—may prove informative.[26] Another approach, this time
archaeological, involves invoking symbolic behavior (such as repeated ritual
activity) that may leave an archaeological trace—such as mining and modifying ochre
pigments for body-painting—while developing theoretical arguments to justify
inferences from symbolism in general to language in particular.[27][28][29]
The time range for the evolution of language or its anatomical prerequisites
extends, at least in principle, from the phylogenetic divergence of Homo from Pan
to the emergence of full behavioral modernity some 50,000–150,000 years ago. Few
dispute that Australopithecus probably lacked vocal communication significantly
more sophisticated than that of great apes in general,[30] but scholarly opinions
vary as to the developments since the appearance of Homo some 2.5 million years
ago. Some scholars assume the development of primitive language-like systems
(proto-language) as early as Homo habilis, while others place the development of
symbolic communication only with Homo erectus (1.8 million years ago) or with Homo
heidelbergensis (0.6 million years ago) and the development of language proper with
Homo sapiens, currently estimated at less than 200,000 years ago.
Using statistical methods to estimate the time required to achieve the current
spread and diversity in modern languages, Johanna Nichols—a linguist at the
University of California, Berkeley—argued in 1998 that vocal languages must have
begun diversifying in the human species at least 100,000 years ago.[31] Estimates
of this kind are not universally accepted, but jointly considering genetic,
archaeological, palaeontological, and much other evidence indicates that language
likely emerged somewhere in sub-Saharan Africa during the Middle Stone Age, roughly
contemporaneous with the speciation of Homo sapiens.[32]
Language origin hypotheses
Early speculations
I cannot doubt that language owes its origin to the imitation and modification,
aided by signs and gestures, of various natural sounds, the voices of other
animals, and man's own instinctive cries.
— Charles Darwin, 1871. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex[33]
In 1861, historical linguist Max Müller published a list of speculative theories
concerning the origins of spoken language:[34]
Bow-wow. The bow-wow, or cuckoo, theory, which Müller attributed to the German
philosopher Johann Gottfried Herder, saw early words as imitations of the cries of
beasts and birds.
Pooh-pooh. The pooh-pooh theory saw the first words as emotional interjections and
exclamations triggered by pain, pleasure, surprise, etc.
Ding-dong. Müller suggested what he called the ding-dong theory, which states that
all things have a vibrating natural resonance, echoed somehow by humans in their
earliest words.
Yo-he-ho. The yo-he-ho theory claims that language emerged from collective rhythmic
labor; that is, the attempt to synchronize muscular efforts resulting in sounds
such as heave alternating with sounds such as ho.
Ta-ta. The ta-ta theory did not feature in Max Müller's list, having been proposed
in 1930 by Sir Richard Paget.[35] According to the ta-ta theory, humans made the
earliest words by tongue movements that mimicked manual gestures, rendering them
audible.
Most scholars today consider all such theories not so much wrong—they occasionally
offer peripheral insights—as naïve and irrelevant.[36][37] The problem with these
theories is that they rest on the assumption that once early humans had discovered
a workable mechanism for linking sounds with meanings, language would automatically
have evolved.[citation needed]
Much earlier, medieval Muslim scholars developed theories on the origin of
language.[38][39] Their theories were of five general types:[40]
Naturalist: There is a natural relationship between expressions and the things they
signify. Language thus emerged from a natural human inclination to imitate the
sounds of nature.
Conventionalist: Language is a social convention. The names of things are arbitrary
inventions of humans.
Revelationist: Language was gifted to humans by God, and it was thus God—and not
humans—who named everything.
Revelationist-Conventionalist: God revealed to humans a core base of language—
enabling humans to communicate with each other—and then humans invented the rest of
language.
Non-Committal: The view that conventionalist and revelationist theories are equally
plausible.
Problems of reliability and deception
Further information: Signalling theory
From the perspective of signalling theory, the main obstacle to the evolution of
language-like communication in nature is not a mechanistic one. Rather, it is the
fact that symbols—arbitrary associations of sounds or other perceptible forms with
corresponding meanings—are unreliable and may as well be false.[41][42][43] The
problem of reliability was not recognized at all by Darwin, Müller or the other
early evolutionary theorists.
Animal vocal signals are, for the most part, intrinsically reliable. When a cat
purrs, the signal constitutes direct evidence of the animal's contented state. The
signal is trusted, not because the cat is inclined to be honest, but because it
just cannot fake that sound. Primate vocal calls may be slightly more manipulable,
but they remain reliable for the same reason—because they are hard to fake.[44]
Primate social intelligence is "Machiavellian"; that is, self-serving and
unconstrained by moral scruples. Monkeys, apes and particularly humans often
attempt to deceive each other, while at the same time remaining constantly on guard
against falling victim to deception themselves.[45][46] Paradoxically, it is
theorized that primates' resistance to deception is what blocks the evolution of
their signalling systems along language-like lines. Language is ruled out because
the best way to guard against being deceived is to ignore all signals except those
that are instantly verifiable. Words automatically fail this test.[19]
Words are easy to fake. Should they turn out to be lies, listeners will adapt by
ignoring them in favor of hard-to-fake indices or cues. For language to work,
listeners must be confident that those with whom they are on speaking terms are
generally likely to be honest.[47] A peculiar feature of language is displaced
reference, which means reference to topics outside the currently perceptible
situation. This property prevents utterances from being corroborated in the
immediate "here" and "now". For this reason, language presupposes relatively high
levels of mutual trust in order to become established over time as an
evolutionarily stable strategy. This stability is born of a longstanding mutual
trust and is what grants language its authority. A theory of the origins of
language must therefore explain why humans could begin trusting cheap signals in
ways that other animals apparently cannot.
The "mother tongues" hypothesis
The "mother tongues" hypothesis was proposed in 2004 as a possible solution to this
problem.[48] W. Tecumseh Fitch suggested that the Darwinian principle of "kin
selection"[49]—the convergence of genetic interests between relatives—might be part
of the answer. Fitch suggests that languages were originally "mother tongues". If
language evolved initially for communication between mothers and their own
biological offspring, extending later to include adult relatives as well, the
interests of speakers and listeners would have tended to coincide. Fitch argues
that shared genetic interests would have led to sufficient trust and cooperation
for intrinsically unreliable signals—words—to become accepted as trustworthy and so
begin evolving for the first time.[50]
Critics of this theory point out that kin selection is not unique to humans.[51] So
even if one accepts Fitch's initial premises, the extension of the posited "mother
tongue" networks from close relatives to more distant relatives remains
unexplained.[51] Fitch argues, however, that the extended period of physical
immaturity of human infants and the postnatal growth of the human brain give the
human-infant relationship a different and more extended period of intergenerational
dependency than that found in any other species.[48]
The "obligatory reciprocal altruism" hypothesis
Ib Ulbæk[6] invokes another standard Darwinian principle—"reciprocal altruism"[52]—
to explain the unusually high levels of intentional honesty necessary for language
to evolve. "Reciprocal altruism" can be expressed as the principle that if you
scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. In linguistic terms, it would mean that if you
speak truthfully to me, I'll speak truthfully to you. Ordinary Darwinian reciprocal
altruism, Ulbæk points out, is a relationship established between frequently
interacting individuals. For language to prevail across an entire community,
however, the necessary reciprocity would have needed to be enforced universally
instead of being left to individual choice. Ulbæk concludes that for language to
evolve, society as a whole must have been subject to moral regulation.
Critics point out that this theory fails to explain when, how, why or by whom
"obligatory reciprocal altruism" could possibly have been enforced.[20] Various
proposals have been offered to remedy this defect.[20] A further criticism is that
language does not work on the basis of reciprocal altruism anyway. Humans in
conversational groups do not withhold information to all except listeners likely to
offer valuable information in return. On the contrary, they seem to want to
advertise to the world their access to socially relevant information, broadcasting
that information without expectation of reciprocity to anyone who will listen.[53]
The gossip and grooming hypothesis
Gossip, according to Robin Dunbar in his book Grooming, Gossip and the Evolution of
Language, language does for group-living humans what manual grooming does for other
primates—it allows individuals to service their relationships and so maintain their
alliances on the basis of the principle: if you scratch my back, I'll scratch
yours. Dunbar argues that as humans began living in increasingly larger social
groups, the task of manually grooming all one's friends and acquaintances became so
time-consuming as to be unaffordable.[54] In response to this problem, humans
developed "a cheap and ultra-efficient form of grooming"—vocal grooming. To keep
allies happy, one now needs only to "groom" them with low-cost vocal sounds,
servicing multiple allies simultaneously while keeping both hands free for other
tasks. Vocal grooming then evolved gradually into vocal language—initially in the
form of "gossip".[54] Dunbar's hypothesis seems to be supported by adaptations, in
the structure of language, to the function of narration in general.[55]
Critics of this theory point out that the efficiency of "vocal grooming"—the fact
that words are so cheap—would have undermined its capacity to signal commitment of
the kind conveyed by time-consuming and costly manual grooming.[56] A further
criticism is that the theory does nothing to explain the crucial transition from
vocal grooming—the production of pleasing but meaningless sounds—to the cognitive
complexities of syntactical speech.
Ritual/speech coevolution
The ritual/speech coevolution theory was originally proposed by social
anthropologist Roy Rappaport[57] before being elaborated by anthropologists such as
Chris Knight,[58] Jerome Lewis,[59] Nick Enfield,[60] Camilla Power[61] and Ian
Watts.[62] Cognitive scientist and robotics engineer Luc Steels[63] is another
prominent supporter of this general approach, as is biological anthropologist and
neuroscientist Terrence Deacon.[64] A more recent champion of the approach is the
Chomskyan specialist in linguistic syntax, Cedric Boeckx.[65]
These scholars argue that there can be no such thing as a "theory of the origins of
language". This is because language is not a separate adaptation, but an internal
aspect of something much wider—namely, the entire domain known to anthropologists
as human symbolic culture.[66] Attempts to explain language independently of this
wider context have failed, say these scientists, because they are addressing a
problem with no solution. Language would not work outside its necessary environment
of confidence-building social mechanisms and institutions. For example, it would
not work for a nonhuman ape communicating with others of its kind in the wild. Not
even the cleverest nonhuman ape could make language work under such conditions.
Lie and alternative, inherent in language ... pose problems to any society whose
structure is founded on language, which is to say all human societies. I have
therefore argued that if there are to be words at all it is necessary to establish
The Word, and that The Word is established by the invariance of liturgy.
— Roy Rappaport[67]
Advocates of this school of thought point out that words are cheap. Should an
especially clever nonhuman ape, or even a group of articulate nonhuman apes, try to
use words in the wild, they would carry no conviction. The primate vocalizations
that do carry conviction—those they actually use—are unlike words, in that they are
emotionally expressive, intrinsically meaningful, and reliable because they are
relatively costly and hard to fake.
Oral and gestural languages consist of pattern-making whose cost is essentially
zero. As pure social conventions, signals of this kind cannot evolve in a Darwinian
social world—they are a theoretical impossibility.[68] Being intrinsically
unreliable, language works only if one can build up a reputation for
trustworthiness within a certain kind of society—namely, one where symbolic
cultural facts (sometimes called "institutional facts") can be established and
maintained through collective social endorsement.[69] In any hunter-gatherer
society, the basic mechanism for establishing trust in symbolic cultural facts is
collective ritual.[70] Therefore, the task facing researchers into the origins of
language is more multidisciplinary than is usually supposed. It involves addressing
the evolutionary emergence of human ritual, kinship, religion and symbolic culture
taken as a whole, with language an important but subsidiary component.
In a 2023 article, Cedric Boeckx[65] endorses the Rappaport/Searle/Knight way of
capturing the "special" nature of human words. Words are symbols. This means that,
from a standpoint in Darwinian signal evolution theory, they are "patently false
signals." Words are facts, but "facts whose existence depends entirely on
subjective belief".[71] In philosophical terms, they are "institutional facts":
fictions that are granted factual status within human social institutions[72] From
this standpoint, according to Boeckx, linguistic utterances are symbolic to the
extent that they are patent falsehoods serving as guides to communicative
intentions. "They are communicatively useful untruths, as it were."[65] The reason
why words can survive among humans despite being false is largely down to a matter
of trust. The corresponding origins theory is that language can only have begun to
evolve from the moment humans started reciprocally faking in communicatively
helpful ways, i.e., when they became capable of upholding the levels of trust
necessary for linguistic communication to work.
The point here is that an ape or other nonhuman must always carry at least some of
the burden of generating the trust necessary for communication to work. That is, in
order to be taken seriously, each signal it emits must be a patently reliable one,
trusted because it is rooted in some way in the real world. But now imagine what
might happen under social conditions where trust could be taken for granted. The
signaller could stop worrying about reliability and concentrate instead on
perceptual discriminability. Carried to its conclusion, this should permit digital
signaling—the cheapest and most efficient kind of communication.
From this philosophical standpoint, animal communication cannot be digital because
it does not have the luxury of being patently false. Costly signals of any kind can
only be evaluated on an analog scale. Put differently, truly symbolic, digital
signals become socially acceptable only under highly unusual conditions—such as
those internal to a ritually bonded community whose members are not tempted to lie.
[58][65]
Critics of the speech/ritual co-evolution idea theory include Noam Chomsky, who
terms it the "non-existence" hypothesis—a denial of the very existence of language
as an object of study for natural science.[73] Chomsky's own theo
