Most approaches to the study of the origin of human language tend to focus on the ‘best case’ end result of several thousand years of human cultural evolution. As such, most definitions of language wax poetically about the uniqueness of human language. Some definitions go so far as to state confidently that language is what separates humans from all other animal life forms. However, if humans were the only creature to have tentacles, we would just as confidently state that having suckers on the end of our appendages was what elevated us from all other creatures. This need to see ourselves as separate and ‘above’ mere animal existence defines most areas of research. let us examine at some of the assumptions regarding human language. First, there is an innate mechanism/module/hierarchical structure in the (unique) human brain which allows for both the acquisition and processing of language. Second, the ability to physically produce vowel sounds separates modern humans from both extinct hominid species and extant nonhuman primate species. Third, all languages are composed of phonetic syntax, arranged into a specific rule based grammar. Fourth, this grammar is innate and generalized enough to fit any and all possible languages. Fifth, syntax has ‘meaning’ and ‘context’ which is not limited to phonetic pronunciation (in nontonal languages at least). Finally, syntax and grammar are employed in such a way that they are not restricted in either space or time.
All of the above assumptions seem reasonable at first glance. If one assumes that the capacity for modern language originated in earlier forms of nonhuman primate vocal communication, then it seems highly likely that there is some area of the brain which was preadapted for this later task. However, the next five assumptions need closer examination. Why should the ability to produce ‘vowel’ sounds and construct grammatical sentences be innately human? As for the notion that syntax has meaning and is not bound spatio-temporally, we have no real way of determining whether or not other animals also posses this ability. The waggle dance of bees, and the various species specific songs of whales and dolphins seem to indicate that this is a very tenuous assumption.
Why are these assumptions so tenuous? The answer lies in the fact that the disciplines involved in addressing the language origin question tend to focus on two specific areas: brain area specialization (i.e. left hemispheric dominance for language function), and theoretical models of grammar acquisition. All of these areas of research are within the broader discipline of psychology. The linguists within anthropology are not interested in language origins in the human species, rather they study the spread of languages throughout history or create ethnographic dictionaries. Within paleoanthropology, there is little interest in the daily life of hominid ancestors, other than dietary and technological assessments. Primatologists tend to focus upon how a particular nonhuman primate species interacts within its current environment, while the animal behaviouralists within psychology, tend to study nonhuman primate species within the artificial environment of a lab or research centre, to examine specific aspects of behaviour.
There are many assumptions regarding the significance of the lineage Homo sapiens sapiens. Amongst its various characteristics, language is deemed to be the one factor which separates modern hominids from all other animal species. While it is true that our ability to transmit complex ideologies, both vocally and symbolically, has allowed the development of ‘higher’ societies, we tend to play down the use of communication in other animals. The main point of contention seems to be based solely in semantics. The calls and physical interactions amongst animals are deemed to be somehow less evolved than those of Homo sapiens sapiens because there is no ‘intention’ or ‘representation’ in their communication.
But is this true? Can one confidently state that all of modern hominid behaviours are merely advanced expressions of previous adaptations? This would seem to point to directed evolution at first glance. However, it may be an expression of a preadaptation which just happened to benefit the organism outside of the realm of nature. If this is true, then the vocalizations which classify as ‘language’ may be nothing more than a psychopathology caused as a result of increased neural complexity.
One cannot separate brain evolution from physiological changes when examining the appearance of language in the hominid lineage. There seems to be a general agreement that human language is a recent evolutionary adaptation. As such, one would expect to find that the human brain has undergone some sort of task reorganization to accommodate this new function. The consensus of the research indicates that the left hemisphere (LH) is specialized for most aspects of language. Specifically, the left frontal area shows specialization for expressive language (Broca’s hypothesis), and the left temporal area appears to be specialized for receptive language (Wernicke hypothesis).However, the right hemisphere (RH) appears to regulate the comprehension and production of humor, metaphor and idioms, and controls the cohesion and coherence in narratives. In addition, studies of children with left and right hemispheric lesions indicate that: 1) there is plasticity in the location of ‘language areas’; and 20 the brains of children show slight differences in functional areas when compared to those of adults.
So what is the difference between (spoken human) language and (other animal) communication? How are they defined? Interestingly enough, none of the articles or books referenced for this paper concisely define what is meant by the word language. It is assumed to be self-evident, just as ‘culture’ used to be (and now anthropologists are loathe to employ that term without a full paragraph or two defining what they mean by ‘culture’ and supporting that with a plethora of references which all hold similar definitions). Spoken language consists of words, which have attributed (‘cultural’) meanings; follows a set of conventionally determined rules of syntax and grammar (also ‘cultural’); is not stagnant, as meanings and context can change over time; new words can form spontaneously (based upon old word forms or completely new combinations). A lot of emphasis has been placed upon the importance of the spoken word in modern human communication (citations of Shakespeare abound), however, the majority of our daily lives are spent listening (trying to decipher the world around us) or communicating in the familiar shorthand of grunts, snorts, barks of laughter, murmurs, and a general mangling of linguistic rules.
What is a word? Consists of syllables (formations of vowels and consonants); more specifically, a word is the controlled modulation of exhaled air. Alterations in pitch and tone, due to voluntary, physical (mechanical) manipulations of the lips, tongue, and vocal chords. How is this different from the communication of any other animal species? The trump card in linguistics and the study of language: modern humans can express an infinite variety of meaning (aka symbolic thought) from one generation to the next, thereby creating an information reservoir which allowed the human species to attain domination of the entire planet. Overstating the point, perhaps.
Research into language origins, be it the evolution of languages in the hominid lineage or the spread of languages throughout time (specifically European languages), rests upon all of the above assumptions of language. Most researchers seem to make the, unconscious, assumption of focusing on the adult forms of communication. Although some researchers focus upon child development of language, the goal for paleoanthropology is to show a timetable (the moment of acquisition) for the emergence of language.
Perhaps, the focus should shift from looking at what the adult human form can do, to examining the capabilities of the younger form. From an evolutionary perspective, ontogeny will provide clues to past adaptations, thus the expressive development in the human child should illustrate how communication in our lineage developed. It is assumed that infants are born with the innate ability for modern human languages. This does not make sense for the following reasons: there is no universal syntax or grammar; languages are dynamic; there are an unknown number of ‘lost’ or ‘dead’ languages (which questions the assumption that languages serve as information storage and transmission mechanisms); and there must be a consensus, among the speakers of a language, of meanings and context (which has to transcend regional variations in speech).
The human infant undergoes many physiological and cognitive changes during its development. During the first few months after birth, the infant is physiologically constrained with regards to the types of vocalizations it can produce. With regard to language acquisition in children it is important to remember that: 1) children require models on which to base their early attempts at language; and 2) it takes years before children are aware of all of the possibilities afforded by their linguistic capabilities (i.e. separating emotive clues from the content of vocal speech).
Human specific abilities such as memory and information representation regarding sequences of sound and behaviour no doubt contribute to language acquisition. However, while this may enable grammatical analysis, and may be requisite for learning human languages, it is not an ability specific to grammar. You cannot hold a conversation with someone who does not understand what you are saying. However, you can still exchange information through other means (symbolic - i.e. drawing a picture; using exaggerated physical gestures). Did australopithecines communicate with one another. Yes. Did they have a fully developed language? Why not? Language is not dependent upon the written word. Most cultures did not possess a written language. The earliest form of (surviving) written language did not appear until roughly 5,000 BC (and how many people can read it today?). Most importantly, mass education for ‘grammatical correctness’ has only occurred within the last few centuries in Western civilization. One can assume that before that point in time, communicating ones thoughts and intentions were more relevant to ones survival than the ‘correct’ placement of arbitrary nouns, verbs and articles within spoken language.
