The Origins of Language Jordan Zlatev

1. Lecture 12 Summary The Origins of LanguageJordan Zlatev

2. What a theory of “the evolution of language” needs to answer • What is it that evolved? (“innate syntax”, capacity for sign use, vocal imitation…?) • How did it evolve? (pre-adaptations, stages, transitions…) • When and where did it evolve? (Locate the processes in time and space) • Why did it evolve? (ecological changes, selective pressures…)

3. Johansson (Ch 12): How? • “… the preponderance of the evidence favors language being an early, gradual adaptation.” (: 244), i.e.not • “late” start (< 50,000 YA) – late grammar is possible • “sudden” (marco-mutation, saltation) • (only) spandrel Debate still going on: • Learned vs. innate (degree and domain-specificity)? • Originally gesture or speech?

4. Johansson (Ch 12): When? • “Homo erectus already possessed non-trivial language abilities” (:246)– language in a broad sense, and if the trochaic canal evidence, not yet speech “comparatively simple, static culture” (: 246) • Neaderthals: speech, burial, taking care of elderly - yes. (Not an “animal”…) Though not (likely) similar to modern languages.

5. Johansson (Ch 12): Why? “the socio-political hypothesis seems most plausible” (: 246) • “social, political, teaching, sexual, economical, and technological factors may all have contributed… rather speculative” (: 246)

6. Why study language origins? • Understand the nature of language • Understand better the nature of evolution, and the interconnectedness of all living beings • Understand better who we are (i.e. human nature)

7. The conceptual-empirical loop

8. The conceptual-empirical loop

9. Students’ questions On… • Empirical evidence (Pelle, Hatice, Anäis) • Explanations (Andra, Zana, Axel) • What is language? – and related notions (Morgan, Emil, Vesna, Yaelle, Sabine, Pontus, Ariane) • Evolutionand human nature (Fredrik, Natsuki, Anu, Niklas)

10. Empirical evidence • Pelle: Could it indicate that more effective sequential operations, hierarchy and recursion in maths and syntax sets H. Sapiens apart from other related species since the operations possibly takes place in similar cytoarchiteconic structures and are crucially important to human language? (F5 vs. Broca) • Yes, but are such skills (e.g. Non-linear maths) not dependent on language?

11. Empirical evidence • Hatice: Is [affective and linguistic] prosody a part of proto-language or language/language-like communication? Mirror neurons? • Spontaneously: • Affective prosody – exapted in language, but basically “non-linguistic”. Universal, non-lateralized? • Linguistic prosody: Language specific: by definition a part of language”. But adaptation or exaptation? Right-hemisphere dominance...

12. Empirical evidence • Anäis: The first homine with (modern-like) speech production? • Very possibly: Homo sapiens – modern, inclusive ”high speed phonology” • But speech (control) almost certainly came gradually – compare the gradual appearance of speech adaptations: thorax, descent of the larynx, hypoglossal canal (if relevant) • The most important evidence: cortical control of vocal apparatus: impossible to know when

13. Explanations • Andrea: What were the neurological processes behind such a shift from subcortical to cortical control of vocalization. What could have motivated this process? • Two possibilities • For non-speech (song?) • For more efficient symbolic communication (from gesture/mimesis – to gesture-speech) • Both have difficulties… and some support.

14. Explanations • Axel: Is the ”language acquisition device” reducible to a human-specific urge to learn, or if necessary, create arbitrary semiotic systems? • The ”urge to learn”, i.e. a motivational difference is quite relevant. • But: ”LAD”, ”reducible”, ”arbitrary”?

15. Explanations • Zana: What would be the consensus between the candidate theories of “the evolution of language” (i.e. by Donald, Deacon, Tomasello, Bickerton, etc.), if such consensus is possible? If not, what theory is the most plausible to your mind? • Lecture 10 and 11 finished with tentative suggestions for why and how. Many factors. • Consensus: the crucial step is sign use (”symbols”)

16. What is language? Etc. • Morgan: Is there anything approaching any kind of standardized definition deemed 'acceptable' for researchers of the larger topic of language origins? • ”Larger topic”? • For the ”field”, actually yes: expression + meaning + grammar • But what THESE mean, and the weight given to them differs a lot!

17. What is language? Etc. • Emil: What is the difference between animal communication and proto-language? ”Basic word order”? • Basically: signals vs. signs (”symbols”), cf. ”the symbolic insight” in children (ca. 18 months) • SOV and SVO most common – but all others, and ”free word order” exist. Even if no 100% ”universals”, significant patterns ask for explanation: • iconicity, info-structure, learning biases... • First language was (Agent omitted) Topic-Action > SOV (Givon 1979)

18. What is language? Etc. • Yaelle: Chomsky objects to such views [importance of social cognition], claiming that UG is a strictly innate human ability…How does Chomsky settle this contradiction? How does he relate to the findings of …spontaneous language acquisition in a bonobo? • Social factors only ”trigger”. Bonobos (and children up to 2 years) do not really have language. • The real problem: if grammar is (crucially) a (motivated) social construction. (Cf. Tomasello 2003: ”Constructing a language”)

19. What is language? Etc. • Sabina: How can results in this field really serve as proof for the uniqueness of language in humans? How can imposing a human language on another species be evidence of their incapability of acquiring language in general? • Many (including me) would grant that the results show at least a capacity for proto-language (conventional sign use).

20. What is language? Etc. • Sabina: All experiments that are constructed in this train of thought seem to take for granted that human language is the only form of language possible and the fact that animals cannot acquire our systems implies that they are not capable of acquiring any language. • Good point – but wouldyouopt of a relativistconception of language (different species – different kinds of ”languages”? • That is why it is important to look for (a) essential features of language (convention, sign, system…) and (b) to make sure thatnon-essential features (e.g. vocalcontrol) are not the reasons for ”failures”. But an open mind is necessary…

21. What is language? Etc. • Pontus: Other traits as being exaptations (or spandrels) that proved useful for language are well represented in the literature, but what are the possibilities for language (or perhaps another culturally evolved phenomenon) being useful as an exaptation? • “… a conventional-normative semiotic system for communication and thought” (though not all thought is based on language) • More than exaptation: language changes our bio-cultural niche> more importance to cultural evolution (think if writing, printing, internet)

22. Evolution and human nature • Fredrik: Are we absolutely sure that human kind will keep on evolving? Is there maybe a peak in evolution? • Yes – evolution (in the modern sense) does not mean improving! But: changing due to intrinsic variation, (conflicting) selection pressures – and changes in the environment. • Even if biological evolution could (somehow) be stabalized, how do you stop cultural evolution? But again: not necessarily improvement(cheesburgers are better memes than tea ceremony)

23. Evolution and human nature • Anu: Is there still (sexual) selection, given that even people with “unattractive” features reproduce? (especially with technology) • But we still differ in the rates we ”reproduce” – and survive to reproduce. As long as there is a correlation between feature X and rate of reproduction, X is ”attractive”. • Optimistic version: Stephen Hawkins • Pessimistic version: Idol

24. Evolution and human nature • Nadya: Which factors provoked the “very” beginning and development of the human language and speech. Biological or cultural? • First factors: a change in the nisch: environmental + social factors. • If the next stage in language development is the cyber-stage does it mean that our brain will somehow change (evolve?)? • Yes: there is evidence that it is shrinking! Clark’s point: we are already bio-cultural ”cyborgs”, technology is part of our nisch, since stone-making

25. Evolution and human nature • Niklas: Wolves which had juvenile traits, and thereby easier to train and teach, were chosen by humans as companions and eventually resulted in dogs.Are humans are more juvenile compared to other primates? Not just having a prolonged childhood, but possessing primate-child-like traits throughout life and thereby acquire language more easily? • Veryinterestinghypothesis. But whilewe did the selecting of the wolves, why did weself-select for ”child-liketraits”? Delayedpubertymeansdelayedrepreduction chance… • Possibly: individualswhowere ”slow starters” learnedmuch more, and out-reproduced the ”tough guys” later.

26. From life to language (Zlatev 2009) Emerge Imply

27. So who are we? All of these – and more… • Animals, with strong instincts and emotions • “Ultra-social” – our existence, and our mentality is deeply social: collaboration, competition, esteem, shame, (dis)respect, (un)happiness… • “Partially monogamous”: our reproductive strategies are based on (strong) affection – but we cheat, when we get the chance, and if our conscience allow us… • Sign-users: initially for communication, but (soon) after that for thought • Language-users: prophets, liars, story-tellers, politicians, poets, teachers… • “Cyborgs”: highly dependent on artifacts for communication, thinking, navigation, sustenance… THE FUTURE IS UNKNOWN