The evolution of the capacity for language

General discussion about learning languages
Online
Kraut
Black Belt - 2nd Dan
Posts: 2599
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 10:37 pm
Languages: German (N)
French (C)
English (C)
Spanish (A2)
Lithuanian
x 3204

The evolution of the capacity for language

Postby Kraut » Sun Feb 18, 2018 6:37 pm

So if language capability is a co-evolutionary trait, what was the primary faculty from which it by-evolved and then was further improved in " a multi-stepped adaptive process, involving multiple genes and gene networks".

In what context was it selected further and refined?
"One such context could have been the teaching of tool production or tool use." There is hardly anything else than tool-making and throwing spears to look for: targeting an animal with a spear then is like going for a certain word or meaning.
---
We can bury Chomsky now who claims there is a single 70.000 year old single gene that works like a computer.
The Schöningen spear throwers must have had language capability and that is 300.000 years back.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=sc ... 990&ch=336


The evolution of the capacity for language: the ecological context and adaptive value of a process of cognitive hijacking

article is behind a pay-wall
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 70052.full

Language plays a pivotal role in the evolution of human culture, yet the evolution of the capacity for language—uniquely within the hominin lineage—remains little understood. Bringing together insights from cognitive psychology, neuroscience, archaeology and behavioural ecology, we hypothesize that this singular occurrence was triggered by exaptation, or ‘hijacking’, of existing cognitive mechanisms related to sequential processing and motor execution. Observed coupling of the communication system with circuits related to complex action planning and control supports this proposition, but the prehistoric ecological contexts in which this coupling may have occurred and its adaptive value remain elusive. Evolutionary reasoning rules out most existing hypotheses regarding the ecological context of language evolution, which focus on ultimate explanations and ignore proximate mechanisms. Coupling of communication and motor systems, although possible in a short period on evolutionary timescales, required a multi-stepped adaptive process, involving multiple genes and gene networks. We suggest that the behavioural context that exerted the selective pressure to drive these sequential adaptations had to be one in which each of the systems undergoing coupling was independently necessary or highly beneficial, as well as frequent and recurring over evolutionary time. One such context could have been the teaching of tool production or tool use. In the present study, we propose the Cognitive Coupling hypothesis, which brings together these insights and outlines a unifying theory for the evolution of the capacity for language.
0 x

User avatar
tarvos
Black Belt - 2nd Dan
Posts: 2889
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2015 11:13 am
Location: The Lowlands
Languages: Native: NL, EN
Professional: ES, RU
Speak well: DE, FR, RO, EO, SV
Speak reasonably: IT, ZH, PT, NO, EL, CZ
Need improvement: PO, IS, HE, JP, KO, HU, FI
Passive: AF, DK, LAT
Dabbled in: BRT, ZH (SH), BG, EUS, ZH (CAN), and a whole lot more.
Language Log: http://how-to-learn-any-language.com/fo ... PN=1&TPN=1
x 6093
Contact:

Re: The evolution of the capacity for language

Postby tarvos » Sun Feb 18, 2018 6:57 pm

I'm not sure what you are actually advancing as a hypothesis here. Could you kindly clarify?
0 x
I hope your world is kind.

Is a girl.

Online
Kraut
Black Belt - 2nd Dan
Posts: 2599
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 10:37 pm
Languages: German (N)
French (C)
English (C)
Spanish (A2)
Lithuanian
x 3204

Re: The evolution of the capacity for language

Postby Kraut » Sun Feb 18, 2018 7:44 pm

We don't know how the capacity for language evolved. Chomsky thinks that there is a language gene that somehow "emerged" some 70.000 years ago.
This language gene has never been discovered.
But there are genes for other human traits that can be located. By-evolution means survival traits (which have their corresponding genes) are selected for a certain purpose and then suddenly "emerges" some other purpose for which they may serve. This is an evolutionary "gift" - let's say communication via sounds -that may be further developed if it's selected, the bad communicators die out.


Think of mathematics. Swimming across a river is a capacity for which a number of survival traits and their genes have contributed. Man can swim across a river, but animals as well. Did animals develop mathematics? No. Can they think mathematically? We don't know, probably not. But man produced Einstein. Neanderthal did not need mathematical thinking to survive, but he could throw spears. Their best spear-throwers survived. If the mental process of spear-throwing
at the same time contributes to the mental process of thinking and producing mathematics and language, you have by-evolution.
That is what the mentioned article is probably after. I can't read the full article.
--------------
Here is an older article by an evolutionist on throwing and language:

Did bigger brains for more precise throwing lead to language, much as feathers for insulation may have set the stage for bird flight?

A Stone's Throw and its Launch Window:
Timing Precision and its Implications
for Language and Hominid Brains
WILLIAM H. CALVIN

http://williamcalvin.com/1980s/1983JTheoretBiol.htm
0 x

User avatar
Deinonysus
Brown Belt
Posts: 1216
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2016 6:06 pm
Location: MA, USA
Languages:  
• Native: English
• Advanced: French
• Intermediate: German,
   Spanish, Hebrew
• Beginner: Italian,
   Arabic
x 4620

Re: The evolution of the capacity for language

Postby Deinonysus » Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:07 pm

You may be interested in The Language Instinct by evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker, a great popular science book that tackles this very issue.

There is no one gene that causes language entirely on its own. A single gene is simply a portion of your genome that codes for one single protein. Just one gene can't create a massively complicated system on its own, but a small change in a gene can drastically change the way an existing system works. Think of a computer program like a web browser or word processor. You can't build a program like that with a single line of code, but you can break it or drastically change the way it works by changing a single important line. There is no one gene for a human's finger, or for a dog's snout, but a single gene, or a couple of genes, can change the number of fingers or number of joints a person has, or can make a dog's snout shorter (brachycephalic), like in a pug or a bulldog.

I'm not familiar with Chomsky's "language gene" theory, but I did find this article that mentions it. It looks like he wasn't suggesting that there's one gene that "works like a computer" on its own; rather, I think he was suggesting that there may have a single gene that modified the brain in such a way allowed a kind of recursion, and that that this modification was what launched us from simple animal communication into human grammar as we know it. In the article I linked, the author pointed to the gene FOXP2 because when this gene stops working it causes a certain speech disorders, although he says this probably isn't quite what Chomsky was looking for.

If memory serves, Chomsky argued that animals such as Koko the gorilla who have been able to communicate with humans using ASL are not true language users because their minds can't comprehend grammar, even if they can use words to convey meaning (although I don't know if he's even acknowledged that they can do that).

Regarding mathematical thinking, beware of human chauvinism. Several species of animals can count, including some birds and our fellow great apes, and Chimpanzees can outperform humans in some counting tasks. Our species coexisted with Neanderthals (homo neanderthalensis, or homo sapiens neanderthalensis, depending on whom you ask) for thousands of years, and I don't believe it's really known why we ended up out-competing them (although some of us do still have some Neanderthal ancestry from interbreeding). We don't know that they had no language, and in fact they probably did. They had advanced tools, they may have created art, and there brains were slightly bigger than ours. For whatever reason, they just couldn't compete.
3 x
/daɪ.nə.ˈnaɪ.səs/

User avatar
Iversen
Black Belt - 4th Dan
Posts: 4768
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 7:36 pm
Location: Denmark
Languages: Monolingual travels in Danish, English, German, Dutch, Swedish, French, Portuguese, Spanish, Catalan, Italian, Romanian and (part time) Esperanto
Ahem, not yet: Norwegian, Afrikaans, Platt, Scots, Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, Albanian, Greek, Latin, Irish, Indonesian and a few more...
Language Log: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1027
x 14962

Re: The evolution of the capacity for language

Postby Iversen » Mon Feb 19, 2018 12:45 am

Many creatures from mice to songbirds have a FoxP2 gene, and humans have just one specific mutation which nobody else have got today - plus one more which distinguishes us from chimps (and seven differences when compared to the gene of a zebra finch). That's all, but as far as I remember these mutations have also been found in the genome of Neanderthals, and that pushes the likely beginning of human language several hundred thousand years back in time. It is commonly assumed that the last common ancestor of us and the neanderthals was Homo heidelbergensis, who died out some 200.000 years ago, so in all likelihood (s)he could speak. Language may have existed before that (in a primitive form), but there is no hard evidence for this (however: do check the section about Ardipithecus in the Wikipedia article about the Origin of language).

Wikipedia has this to say about the effects of defects in the gene:

Several cases of developmental verbal dyspraxia in humans have been linked to mutations in the FOXP2 gene.[29][35][36][37] Such individuals have little or no cognitive handicaps but are unable to correctly perform the coordinated movements required for speech. fMRI analysis of these individuals performing silent verb generation and spoken word repetition tasks showed underactivation of Broca's area and the putamen, brain centers thought to be involved in language tasks. Because of this, FOXP2 has been dubbed the "language gene".

.. and rightly so, if I may say so. But having a 'good' FoxP2 is almost certainly not enough, and even though people with defect genes may have problems using their Broca it is significant that they do have a Broca - and probably also a Wernicke's center - in their brains. But so do chimps.

The apes who have learnt to communicate with us do so by using computers or sign language or objects that symbolize different words. Early attempts to learn chimps to speak standard English were painfully unsuccesful, but chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans and gorillas can all to some extent learn to understand simple human utterances (I haven't heard about experiments with gibbons). By combining several symbols they can also express simple messages, like "Let's" + "walk" + "now" or "give me" + "M&Ms" + "oranges". They do however not show signs of mastering more complex sentence patterns, and abstract thinking also seems to be out of reach for them. So I do agree with Chomsky that we must have something that the other apes don't have, but not that it came in one fell swoop as a readymade plug and play module. Is it just a result of having a far more complex brain? Well, maybe, but it could also be the result of having one crucial mutation in a gene - but only because we also have other things like a human FoxP2 and the capacity to imagine things. As far as I know there is no solution to this problem right now, but it could come tomorrow.

I personally think it would be worth looking closer into the linguistic capabilities of congenitally deaf persons and their use of sign languages. How much more grammar can they put into an utterance than a bonobo or chimp who have learnt the same signs can? And do they use their Broca's and Wernicke's areas as a person with normal spoken languages do? Somebody out there may already be able to answer these questions, and then you have eliminated one variable, namely the vocal shortcomings of the great apes. I have read some articles on the internet, and they say that chimps do have asymmetrical centres like we do, but their centres are smaller than ours, even taking the general difference in brain size into account. And their centres seem to be less well connected. But is that enough to explain that no chimp have ever composed a poem, let alone concocted a really complex sentence with several levels?
2 x

User avatar
Deinonysus
Brown Belt
Posts: 1216
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2016 6:06 pm
Location: MA, USA
Languages:  
• Native: English
• Advanced: French
• Intermediate: German,
   Spanish, Hebrew
• Beginner: Italian,
   Arabic
x 4620

Re: The evolution of the capacity for language

Postby Deinonysus » Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:52 am

Iversen wrote:Many creatures from mice to songbirds have a FoxP2 gene, and humans have just one specific mutation which nobody else have got today - plus one more which distinguishes us from chimps (and seven differences when compared to the gene of a zebra finch). That's all, but as far as I remember these mutations have also been found in the genome of Neanderthals, and that pushes the likely beginning of human language several hundred thousand years back in time. It is commonly assumed that the last common ancestor of us and the neanderthals was Homo heidelbergensis, who died out some 200.000 years ago, so in all likelihood (s)he could speak. Language may have existed before that (in a primitive form), but there is no hard evidence for this (however: do check the section about Ardipithecus in the Wikipedia article about the Origin of language).

Wikipedia has this to say about the effects of defects in the gene:

Several cases of developmental verbal dyspraxia in humans have been linked to mutations in the FOXP2 gene.[29][35][36][37] Such individuals have little or no cognitive handicaps but are unable to correctly perform the coordinated movements required for speech. fMRI analysis of these individuals performing silent verb generation and spoken word repetition tasks showed underactivation of Broca's area and the putamen, brain centers thought to be involved in language tasks. Because of this, FOXP2 has been dubbed the "language gene".

.. and rightly so, if I may say so. But having a 'good' FoxP2 is almost certainly not enough, and even though people with defect genes may have problems using their Broca it is significant that they do have a Broca - and probably also a Wernicke's center - in their brains. But so do chimps.

The apes who have learnt to communicate with us do so by using computers or sign language or objects that symbolize different words. Early attempts to learn chimps to speak standard English were painfully unsuccesful, but chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans and gorillas can all to some extent learn to understand simple human utterances (I haven't heard about experiments with gibbons). By combining several symbols they can also express simple messages, like "Let's" + "walk" + "now" or "give me" + "M&Ms" + "oranges". They do however not show signs of mastering more complex sentence patterns, and abstract thinking also seems to be out of reach for them. So I do agree with Chomsky that we must have something that the other apes don't have, but not that it came in one fell swoop as a readymade plug and play module. Is it just a result of having a far more complex brain? Well, maybe, but it could also be the result of having one crucial mutation in a gene - but only because we also have other things like a human FoxP2 and the capacity to imagine things. As far as I know there is no solution to this problem right now, but it could come tomorrow.

I personally think it would be worth looking closer into the linguistic capabilities of congenitally deaf persons and their use of sign languages. How much more grammar can they put into an utterance than a bonobo or chimp who have learnt the same signs can? And do they use their Broca's and Wernicke's areas as a person with normal spoken languages do? Somebody out there may already be able to answer these questions, and then you have eliminated one variable, namely the vocal shortcomings of the great apes. I have read some articles on the internet, and they say that chimps do have asymmetrical centres like we do, but their centres are smaller than ours, even taking the general difference in brain size into account. And their centres seem to be less well connected. But is that enough to explain that no chimp have ever composed a poem, let alone concocted a really complex sentence with several levels?

Interesting!

On the molecular level, we aren't very different from a mouse or a sea sponge or a yeast, so it's not surprising that other species would have this same gene. But on a macro level, we are very different. The human brain is completely different from that of a songbird, a mouse, or even a chimpanzee. Our brain is over three times larger than the brain of our closest relative, so it's a whole different beast. And the same gene could have a completely different effect in a different kind of brain. I would agree that having a 'good' FOXP2 gene is not enough and it has more to do with how it works in the context of different brains with different structures.

While I don't think it's impossible that something happened with a single mutation that gave us a "giant leap" into the complexity of human grammar, I think it's much more likely that there were a long series of gradual changes.

ASL and any other sign languages with native speakers are true human languages with full human grammar. The only reason that other apes use sign language is that, as you say, they have vocal shortcomings, and their throats cannot replicate human speach. However, other animals, such as Alex the African Grey parrot, are fully capable of communicating in spoken English.

I believe the Chomskyite argument is that even though birds and nonhuman apes are able to communicate ideas using individual words or short combinations of words from human languages, they are not capable of using true grammar the way we do. Of course, just because they can't communicate in the exact same way that we do, that doesn't mean we can assume they aren't sentient. We humans have a bad habit of defining sentience in terms of our own capabilities.
3 x
/daɪ.nə.ˈnaɪ.səs/

User avatar
Iversen
Black Belt - 4th Dan
Posts: 4768
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 7:36 pm
Location: Denmark
Languages: Monolingual travels in Danish, English, German, Dutch, Swedish, French, Portuguese, Spanish, Catalan, Italian, Romanian and (part time) Esperanto
Ahem, not yet: Norwegian, Afrikaans, Platt, Scots, Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, Albanian, Greek, Latin, Irish, Indonesian and a few more...
Language Log: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1027
x 14962

Re: The evolution of the capacity for language

Postby Iversen » Mon Feb 19, 2018 9:51 am

It's actually not from Chomsky that I got the idea that the main difference between our language use and that of the specially tutored great apes is GRAMMAR. I remember that I became aware of the experiments with apes in the mid 70s while I studied French, and I also remember that I discussed the results with professor Martinet, a renowned scholar and polyglot who happened to visit our institute. At that time Chomsky was still just an ominous dark cloud on the horizon here in Denmark..

Other experiments have already now shown difference in the mental capabilities of the other apes and us. For instance they know how to learn from watching other troop members, but apparently they don't really try to teach actively by showing their youngs how to do things, like suricates do when they teach their young how to kill scorpions. And I just yesterday saw in one of those Morgan Freeman TV programs that they may be aware that other apes/humans have a mind and ideas of their own, but according to that program they can't cope with the idea that other's may have an erroneous perception of the world (or different from their own), and while they can show empathy they don't have an abstract notion of justice (which however is contradicted by another program which showed a high ranking chimp who decided that an attack on another troop member had to stop and protected the victim).

Our capability to operate with advanced grammar (including phenomena like recursion) may be a faculty at the same level as these other mental faculties, which the great apes apparently lack.

PS I have read about Alex the parrot, who learned a lot of words and could understand simple messages. But even here - and with a totally different brain structure - the missing element is the ability to use a complex grammar. A related information: yesterday I read somewhere on the internet that the males of certain wild songbirds (zebra finches?) have a fairly standardized song. But after several generations in captivity (where they don't need to compete for female company) the songs start to fluctuate wildly and be liable to include sequences picked up from irrelevant non-avian sources, and now the surprise: at the same time the relevant brain structures become larger and more complex.
3 x

Online
Kraut
Black Belt - 2nd Dan
Posts: 2599
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 10:37 pm
Languages: German (N)
French (C)
English (C)
Spanish (A2)
Lithuanian
x 3204

Re: The evolution of the capacity for language

Postby Kraut » Mon Feb 19, 2018 12:13 pm

I have just come across this. How aweful! How could a sapiens female mate with these guys?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o589CAu ... gest-vrecs

High-pitched voice theory - Neanderthal - BBC science
0 x

User avatar
Deinonysus
Brown Belt
Posts: 1216
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2016 6:06 pm
Location: MA, USA
Languages:  
• Native: English
• Advanced: French
• Intermediate: German,
   Spanish, Hebrew
• Beginner: Italian,
   Arabic
x 4620

Re: The evolution of the capacity for language

Postby Deinonysus » Mon Feb 19, 2018 3:21 pm

Iversen wrote:It's actually not from Chomsky that I got the idea that the main difference between our language use and that of the specially tutored great apes is GRAMMAR. I remember that I became aware of the experiments with apes in the mid 70s while I studied French, and I also remember that I discussed the results with professor Martinet, a renowned scholar and polyglot who happened to visit our institute. At that time Chomsky was still just an ominous dark cloud on the horizon here in Denmark..

Other experiments have already now shown difference in the mental capabilities of the other apes and us. For instance they know how to learn from watching other troop members, but apparently they don't really try to teach actively by showing their youngs how to do things, like suricates do when they teach their young how to kill scorpions. And I just yesterday saw in one of those Morgan Freeman TV programs that they may be aware that other apes/humans have a mind and ideas of their own, but according to that program they can't cope with the idea that other's may have an erroneous perception of the world (or different from their own), and while they can show empathy they don't have an abstract notion of justice (which however is contradicted by another program which showed a high ranking chimp who decided that an attack on another troop member had to stop and protected the victim).

Our capability to operate with advanced grammar (including phenomena like recursion) may be a faculty at the same level as these other mental faculties, which the great apes apparently lack.

PS I have read about Alex the parrot, who learned a lot of words and could understand simple messages. But even here - and with a totally different brain structure - the missing element is the ability to use a complex grammar. A related information: yesterday I read somewhere on the internet that the males of certain wild songbirds (zebra finches?) have a fairly standardized song. But after several generations in captivity (where they don't need to compete for female company) the songs start to fluctuate wildly and be liable to include sequences picked up from irrelevant non-avian sources, and now the surprise: at the same time the relevant brain structures become larger and more complex.

Haha, I'm not very familiar with Chomsky other than his skepticism of animal language use, and that he's very controversial. I'm sensing that you're not a fan.

Interesting note about the songbirds. I believe some whales (orcas, maybe?) are also known to have "dialects" that are passed down. Another important reminder that just because an animal can't use or understand human grammar, it doesn't mean they don't have a complex grammar of their own.
0 x
/daɪ.nə.ˈnaɪ.səs/

Online
Kraut
Black Belt - 2nd Dan
Posts: 2599
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 10:37 pm
Languages: German (N)
French (C)
English (C)
Spanish (A2)
Lithuanian
x 3204

Re: The evolution of the capacity for language

Postby Kraut » Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:37 pm

Homo erectus may have sailed to islands and used language

Read more at https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot ... 5mh1iub.99

Everett says that H. erectus would have been unable to make the same range of sounds as we do, not least because they lacked the version of a gene necessary for speech and language to develop – known as FOXP2 – found in modern humans and Neanderthals, although it is not clear whether Neanderthals had language. But he argues that as few as two sounds are needed for a language, and that it is likely H.erectus could make more than that.
1 x


Return to “General Language Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: tastyonions and 2 guests