1、Origin of languageFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe origin of language in the human species has been the topic of scholarly discussions for several centuries. In spite of this, there is no consensus on its ultimate origin or age. One problem that makes the topic difficult to study is the lack

2、 of direct evidence, since neither languages nor the ability to produce them fossilizes. Consequently, scholars wishing to study the origins of language must draw inferences from other kinds of evidence such as the fossil record or from archaeological evidence, from contemporary language diversity,

3、from studies of language acquisition, and from comparisons between human language and systems of communication existing among other animals, particularly other primates. It is generally agreed that the origins of language are closely tied to the origins of modern human behavior, but there is little

4、agreement about the implications and directionality of this connection.This fact that empirical evidence is limited has led many scholars to regard the entire topic as unsuitable for serious study. In 1866, the Linguistic Society of Paris went so far as to ban debates on the subject, a prohibition w

5、hich remained influential across much of the western world until late in the twentieth century.1 Today, there are numerous hypotheses about how, why, when, and where language might first have emerged.2 It might seem that there is hardly more agreement today than there was a hundred years ago, when C

6、harles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection provoked a rash of armchair speculations on the topic.3 Since the early 1990s, however, a growing number of professional linguists, archaeologists, psychologists, anthropologists, and others have attempted to address with new methods what

7、they are beginning to consider "the hardest problem in science".4Contents hide · 1 Approaches· 2 Language origin hypotheses o 2.1 Early speculationso 2.2 Problems of reliability and deception § 2.2.1 The 'mother tongues' hypothesis§ 2.2.2 The 'obli

8、gatory reciprocal altruism' hypothesis§ 2.2.3 The gossip and grooming hypothesis§ 2.2.4 Ritual/speech coevolutiono 2.3 Gestural theoryo 2.4 Mirror neurons and language originso 2.5 Putting the baby down theoryo 2.6 Grammaticalisation theoryo 2.7 Self-domesticated ape theory· 3 Com

9、munication, speech and language· 4 Cognitive development and language o 4.1 Theory of mindo 4.2 Number representation· 5 Linguistic structures o 5.1 Lexical-phonological principleo 5.2 Pidgins and creoles· 6 Evolutionary timeline o 6.1 Primate languageo 6.2 Early Homoo 6.3 Archaic Hom

10、o sapiens § 6.3.1 Homo heidelbergensis§ 6.3.2 Homo neanderthalensiso 6.4 Homo sapiens· 7 Biological scenarios for language evolution· 8 Biological foundations for human speech· 9 History o 9.1 In religion and mythologyo 9.2 Historical experimentso 9.3 History of researcho 9.

11、4 Genesis of Nicaraguan Sign Language· 10 See also· 11 Footnotes· 12 References· 13 Further reading· 14 External links1.ApproachesApproaches to the origin of language can be divided according to their underlying assumptions. 'Continuity theories' are based on the ide

12、a that language is so complex that one cannot imagine it simply appearing from nothing in its final form: it must have evolved from earlier pre-linguistic systems among our primate ancestors. 'Discontinuity theories' are based on the opposite idea that language is a unique trait so it cannot

13、 be compared to anything found among non-humans and must therefore have appeared fairly suddenly during the course of human evolution. Another contrast is between theories that see language mostly as an innate faculty that is largely genetically encoded, and those that see it as a system that is mai

14、nly cultural that is, learned through social interaction.5Noam Chomsky is a prominent proponent of discontinuity theory. He argues that a single chance mutation occurred in one individual on the order of 100,000 years ago, triggering the 'instantaneous' emergence of the language faculty (a c

15、omponent of the mind-brain) in 'perfect' or 'near-perfect' form. The philosophical argument runs, briefly, as follows: firstly, from what is known about evolution, any biological change in a species arises by a random genetic change in a single individual which spreads throughout its

16、 breeding group. Secondly, from a computational perspective on the theory of language: the only change that was needed was the cognitive ability to construct and process recursive data structures in the mind (the property of "discrete infinity", which appears to be unique to the human mind

17、). This genetic change, which endowed the human mind with the property of discrete infinity, Chomsky argues, essentially amounts to a jump from being able to count up to N, where N is a fixed number, to being able to count indefinitely (i.e. if N can be constructed then so can N+1). It follows from

18、these assertions that the evolution of the human language faculty is saltational since, as a matter of logical fact, there is no way to gradually transition from a mind capable only of counting up to a fixed number, to a mind capable of counting indefinitely. The picture then, by loose analogy, is t

19、hat the formation of the language faculty in humans is akin to the formation of a crystal; discrete infinity was the seed crystal in a super-saturated primate brain, on the verge of blossoming into the human mind, by physical law, once a single small, but crucial, key stone was added by evolution.67

20、Continuity based theories are currently held by a majority of scholars, but they vary in how they envision this development. Among those who see language as being mostly innate, some notably Steven Pinker8 avoid speculating about specific precursors in nonhuman primates, stressing simply that the la

21、nguage faculty must have evolved in the usual gradualistic way.9 Others in this intellectual camp notably Ib Ulbæk10 hold that language evolved not from primate communication but from primate cognition, which is significantly more complex. Those who see language as a socially learned tool of co

22、mmunication, such as Michael Tomasello, see it developing from the cognitively controlled aspects of primate communication, these being mostly gestural as opposed to vocal.1112 Where vocal precursors are concerned, many continuity theorists envisage language evolving from early human capacities for

23、song.1314Transcending the continuity-versus-discontinuity divide are those who view the emergence of language as the consequence of some kind of social transformation15 that, by generating unprecedented levels of public trust, liberated a genetic potential for linguistic creativity that had previous

24、ly lain dormant.161718 'Ritual/speech coevolution theory' is an example of this approach.1920 Scholars in this intellectual camp point to the fact that even chimpanzees and bonobos have latent symbolic capacities that, in the wild, they rarely if ever use.21Because the emergence of language

25、is located so far back in human prehistory, the relevant developments have left no direct historical traces; nor can comparable processes be observed today. Despite this, the emergence of new sign languages in modern times Nicaraguan Sign Language, for example might potentially offer insights into t

26、he developmental stages and creative processes necessarily involved.22 Another approach has been to inspect early human fossils, looking for traces of physical adaptation to language use.2324 In some cases, when the DNA of extinct humans can be recovered, the presence or absence of supposedly langua

27、ge-relevant genes FOXP2 is an example might prove informative.25 Another approach, this time archeological, is to invoke symbolic behaviour (such as repeated ritual activity) that may leave an archaeological tracesuch as mining and modification of ochre pigments for body-paintingwhile developing the

28、oretical arguments to justify inferences from symbolism in general to language in particular.262728The time range for the evolution of language and/or its anatomical prerequisites extends, at least in principle, from the phylogenetic divergence of Homo (2.3 to 2.4 million years ago) from Pan (5 to 6

29、 million years ago) to the emergence of full behavioral modernity some 150,000 - 50,000 years ago. Few dispute that Australopithecus probably lacked vocal communication significantly more sophisticated than that of great apes in general,29 but scholarly opinions vary as to the developments since the

30、 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 Homo heidelbergensis (0.6

31、million years ago) and the development of language proper with Homo sapiens less than 200,000 years ago.Using statistical methods to estimate the time required to achieve the current spread and diversity in modern languages today, Johanna Nichols a linguist at the University of California, Berkeley

32、argued in 1998 that vocal languages must have begun diversifying in our species at least 100,000 years ago.30 Using phonemic diversity, a more recent analysis offers directly linguistic support for a similar date.31 Estimates of this kind are independently supported by genetic, archaeological, palae

33、ontological and much other evidence suggesting that language probably emerged somewhere in sub-Saharan Africa during the Middle Stone Age, roughly contemporaneous with the speciation of Homo sapiens.32Linguists agree that, apart from such things as pidgins, there are no "primitive" languag

34、es: all modern human populations speak languages of comparable expressive power,33 though much recent scholarship has explored how linguistic complexity varies between and within languages over historical time.342.Language origin hypotheses2.1 Early speculationsI cannot doubt that language owes its

35、origin to the imitation and modification, aided by signs and gestures, of various natural sounds, the voices of other animals, and mans own instinctive cries. Charles Darwin, 1871. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex.35In 1861, historical linguist Max Müller published a list of

36、 speculative theories concerning the origins of spoken language:36· 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 th

37、e first words as emotional interjections and exclamations triggered by pain, pleasure, surprise and so on.· Ding-dong. Müller suggested what he called the Ding-Dong theory, which states that all things have a vibrating natural resonance, echoed somehow by man in his earliest words.· Y

38、o-he-ho. The yo-he-ho theory saw language emerging out of collective rhythmic labour, the attempt to synchronise muscular effort resulting in sounds such as heave alternating with sounds such as ho.· Ta-ta. This did not feature in Max Müller's list, having been proposed in 1930 by Sir

39、Richard Paget.37 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 wrongthey occasionally offer peripheral insightsas comically naïve and irrelevant.3

40、839 The problem with these theories is that they are so narrowly mechanistic. They assume that once our ancestors had stumbled upon the appropriate ingenious mechanism for linking sounds with meanings, language automatically evolved and changed.2.2 Problems of reliability and deceptionFrom the persp

41、ective of modern science, 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 well be false.40 As the s

42、aying goes, 'words are cheap.'41 The problem of reliability was not recognised at all by Darwin, Müller or the other early evolutionist theorists.Animal vocal signals are for the most part intrinsically reliable. When a cat purrs, the signal constitutes direct evidence of the animal'

43、;s contented state. We can 'trust' the signal not because the cat is inclined to be honest, but because it just can't 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.42 Primate social intell

44、igence is Machiavellianself-serving and unconstrained by moral scruples. Monkeys and apes often attempt to deceive one another, while at the same time remaining constantly on guard against falling victim to deception themselves.43 Paradoxically, it is precisely primates' resistance to deception

45、that 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.44Words are easy to fake. Should they tu

46、rn out to be lies, listeners will adapt by ignoring them in favour of hard-to-fake indices or cues. For language to work, then, listeners must be confident that those with whom they are on speaking terms are generally likely to be honest.45 A peculiar feature of language is 'displaced reference&

47、#39;, 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

48、over time as an evolutionarily stable strategy. A theory of the origins of language must therefore explain why humans could begin trusting cheap signals in ways that other animals apparently cannot (see signalling theory).2.3 The 'mother tongues' hypothesisThe 'mother tongues' hypoth

49、esis was proposed in 2004 as a possible solution to this problem.46 W. Tecumseh Fitch suggested that the Darwinian principle of 'kin selection'47 the convergence of genetic interests between relatives might be part of the answer. Fitch suggests that languages were originally 'mother tong

50、ues'. 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 suffic

51、ient trust and cooperation for intrinsically unreliable signals words to become accepted as trustworthy and so begin evolving for the first time.Critics of this theory point out that kin selection is not unique to humans. Ape mothers also share genes with their offspring, as do all animals, so why i

52、s it only humans who speak? Furthermore, it is difficult to believe that early humans restricted linguistic communication to genetic kin: the incest taboo must have forced men and women to interact and communicate with non-kin. So even if we accept Fitch's initial premises, the extension of the

53、posited 'mother tongue' networks from relatives to non-relatives remains unexplained.482.4 The 'obligatory reciprocal altruism' hypothesisIb Ulbæk49 invokes another standard Darwinian principle 'reciprocal altruism'50 to explain the unusually high levels of intentional h

54、onesty 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 altruis

55、m, 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 tha

56、t for language to evolve, early 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. Various proposals have been offered to remedy this d

57、efect.51 A further criticism is that language doesn't work on the basis of reciprocal altruism anyway. Humans in conversational groups don't withhold information to all except listeners likely to offer valuable information in return. On the contrary, they seem to want to advertise to the wor

58、ld their access to socially relevant information, broadcasting it to anyone who will listen without thought of return.522.5 The gossip and grooming hypothesisGossip, according to Robin Dunbar, does for group-living humans what manual grooming does for other primates it allows individuals to service

59、their relationships and so maintain their alliances on the basis of the principle, if you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. As humans began living in larger and larger social groups, the task of manually grooming all one's friends and acquaintances became so time-consuming as to be unaffo

60、rdable. In response to this problem, humans invented 'a cheap and ultra-efficient form of grooming' vocal grooming. To keep your allies happy, you now needed 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'.