Speech developed from communication through hand gestures about 50 thousand years ago

An article about Noam Chomsky and another article dealing with the question of whether the development of language was in the way of evolution

I have an idea, the Homo Spines sign in his hands, we can just talk
06/06/2002
Language / A new theory about the origin of human language claims that speech evolved from communication through hand gestures and that the change occurred about 50 thousand years ago
By Emily Eakin

"

"What a hairy back!" - This, according to actress Lily Tomlin, was the first human trial. Whether there is truth in this joking assessment or not, if Michael Corvallis is right, it was expressed in gestures and not in sounds. Corvallis, a psychologist at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, is the leading proponent of a controversial theory that holds that long before humans began to speak, they chattered with their palms.

The question of the origin of human language is one of the great mysteries of evolution. In a new book, From Hand to Mouth: The Origins of Language (published by Princeton University), Corvallis takes a bold stand and claims that although speech was a genius invention, it is not exactly the strange wonder described by many linguists. Corvallis suggests that ancient humans switched from hand gestures to speech not long ago - about 50 years, which is the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms. He also believes that the language itself, and the sophisticated mental ability needed to produce it, are much earlier.

"The common ancestor of humans, who lived five or six million years ago, was in no way capable of conducting a telephone conversation, but he could make voluntary movements of the hands and face, which could at least have served as a basis for building language," Corvallis writes. "Grammatical language may have begun to develop about two million years ago, but it was initially a gestural language. However, there is no doubt that this language included grunts and other vocal calls."

The theory sounds quite plausible. It is enough to look around and see how many hand gestures accompany human communication even today. But Corvallis still failed to convince many linguists of the theory's validity. "He's not a linguist, and I think he doesn't appreciate the level of sophistication needed to create a grammatical system," said Ray Jackendoff, a professor of linguistics at Brandeis University. "I have never come across a convincing argument for or against the explanation that language evolved from gestures and not from sounds. If it evolved from gestures, it still has to be explained how such an amazing adaptation took place in the transition to a sound language."

Fossils are not particularly helpful in this regard. As Jackendoff said: "The problem with discussing the evolution of language at any level of detail is that there is no evidence. Everything remains conjecture."

In recent decades, leading linguists and biologists have opposed the various theories about the origins of language. The linguist Noam Chomsky, for example, whose ideas have dominated this field for more than 40 years, has been accused many times of describing language as such a special feature that the theory of natural selection stands helpless in front of it and is unable to explain it.

Chomsky's influential theory of universal grammar assumes that there are basic principles common to all human languages, and that these principles are innate and not learned. But some of his readers concluded that the meaning of these things is that the ability to acquire and speak a language appeared all at once and not gradually, as a result of what one of the critics mockingly called "the cognitive equivalent of the Big Bang."

Recently, however, Darwinian theories of the evolution of language have been revived, supported by new research on ape communication and human sign language, as well as by the more general research tendency to think in evolutionary terms. In his 1994 bestseller, The Language Instinct, Steven Pinker of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) defended the idea that language evolved through a process of natural selection, although he admitted that "the first steps toward language are a mystery" (if we had to guess Regarding the origins of language, he added, he would point to the calls of primates, rather than gestures, as a preliminary stage to speech).

Pinker's book seems to have opened the door to a flood of possibilities. In 1996, the British anthropologist Robin Dunbar proposed a theory that language evolved from the mutual scavenging of primates. Among monkeys, physical contact - tickling, scratching and cleaning fur - serves as a social glue that helps establish hierarchies and loyalties and express empathy or sorrow. But scratching the back of an entire herd of baboons requires a considerable amount of time. With the expansion of the first human populations, Dunbar believes, the talk became the more effective alternative - as if it were a kind of group massage.

Recently, Peter McNeilage and Barbara Davis, researchers at the University of Texas at Austin, developed the "chewing theory", which links the evolution of language to the movements of the mouth during chewing. "The mouth closes and opens when chewing, just as it closes to produce consonants and opens to produce vowels," McNeilage explained in a telephone interview.

At the same time, Michael Arbiv, a scientist from the University of Southern California, is developing another version of the gesture theory. This version is based on finding a similarity between the way the human brain recognizes language and the way the brains of monkeys recognize gestures.

Corvallis says the evidence supporting the gesture theory is mounting. Researchers now know, for example, that sign languages ​​are no less grammatically complex than spoken languages. Furthermore, spoken language and sign language are linked to the left side of the brain - the same side that controls most people's dominant hand, the right hand.

From an evolutionary point of view, Corvallis argues, gesture theory has several advantages. First, it may explain why chimpanzees – the closest apes to humans – succeed in learning various forms of sign language, but fail miserably when it comes to imitating human speech or even mastering their own readings.

He further suggests that the upright posture adopted by the first hominids - the ape-like ancestors of the human race - up to two million years ago, facilitated communication based on hand gestures. He hinted that the gesture theory might dispel the fog regarding another question concerning this period: why the stone tools of the first humans show only little development for nearly two million years, despite the increase in brain size.
Could it be that these two-legged creatures were so busy snapping their fingers that they had no time to develop tools? In the 70s, one anthropologist even suggested that the reason humans developed non-pigmented palms - unlike other primates - was so that their handprints would be better seen in the dark, around a fire.

But the complicated question still remains, why and when these skilled sign language users moved to a spoken language. For a time, Corvallis surmises, they used a combination of the two. Then, about 50 thousand years ago, a fateful change took place: a tremendous boom in the fields of technology, cave paintings, textile production and even the construction of musical instruments. What does Corvallis mean by this development? According to him, because they were freed from the burden of communication, the hands of the first humans were finally free to begin the real work of establishing a civilization.

But his most daring idea is that the ancestors of mankind switched from gestures to speech not because their brains underwent a sudden mutation - a cognitive "big bang" - but because some of them thought it was a good idea. He called the development of autonomous speech a "cultural invention", similar to the script, and one that "may have happened long after the ground had already been prepared for its growth".

And once speech gained momentum, it gave Homo sapiens a distinct advantage over their less verbal rivals, including Homo erectus and the Neanderthals, who gradually became extinct. "We talked them to death," Corvallis said with a satisfied smile.

Gesture theory is a fascinating story. But like many other theories, it may not be much more than that. According to Richard Lewantin, professor of biology at Harvard University, the question of the origin of human language may remain unanswered. "If there is no close species with a similar feature, there is the problem of innovation," he said, "and what you and I are doing right now, no bonobo or chimpanzee will ever do."

Chomsky agreed. "This topic fascinates people because it's about us," he said, "but that doesn't mean it's a scientific question. It may be important that we know where we came from, but if we can't answer the question through scientific means, we won't be able to answer it. Whoever wants to tell stories, let them tell stories ".
New York Times

* * * ** * * ** *
When the tongue started rolling

Did human language develop according to the rules of evolution
By Yanai Ofran

Steven Pinker, one of the most famous language and brain researchers, compared language to an elephant's trunk. The gap between human language and any other form of communication in the animal world is like the gap between the trunk and any other form of nostrils. Still, the question of how the trunk developed during evolution, about the 6,000 muscles that build it, does not ignite the imagination of researchers and philosophers. It is likely that one refinement led to another, and the stem got longer over the years. On the other hand, the question of how language developed has provided fertile ground for scientific and philosophical discussions for several centuries. The development of language apparently conflicts with two fundamental principles of evolution. A study published this week offers a possible solution to this pitfall.

The most basic rule of evolution is "survival of the fittest". Every now and then an individual can be born into a population with a new and unique trait that he can pass on to his offspring. This trait will spread in the population only if the person who carries it has a significant advantage - that is, if it allows one to obtain more food, win battles, or reproduce faster.

The second rule states that evolution does not occur in large leaps. Small and gradual changes, each of which gives a slight advantage over the previous situation, accumulate until eventually the differences between a bacterium and a hippopotamus are created. The process takes millions of years, and each individual, even the one that carries the new trait, is very similar to its parents.

The language seems to contradict these two principles. While it is clear that the ability to convey messages improves the ability to survive, human language appears to be far more complex than required. It is hard to argue that the ability to read poetry or understand puns was of any weight in the fierce competition that existed between our hunter-gatherer ancestors.

Equally difficult is the question of how the language developed. Even bacteria communicate with each other. They transfer molecules to each other that reflect the environmental conditions, allowing each bacterium to better adapt to reality.
Not to mention the dance of the bee, which informs her friends in the nest about the location of the food, about the song of the birds, about communication during courtship, battle, warning against predators and more.

But a clear line separates all these forms of communication from human language - human language has syntax. In all forms of communication of other animals in the wild (except, apparently, dolphins and certain types of monkeys) each sign conveys one message. The repertoire of messages is limited to the repertoire of signs. In human language, on the other hand, it is possible to add different conjunctions and create new messages. An infinite repertoire of messages is based on a small repertoire of symbols. Such a leap, claim many researchers, cannot happen gradually; A continuous gradual transition from a form of communication with many signs and without syntax to a form of communication with few signs and with syntax is not possible.

Indeed, one of the most famous evolutionists, Steven J. Gould, claims that language did not develop through a process of natural selection. According to him, the human brain underwent a slow process of natural selection in which the smarter creature was found to be more suitable. The human brain reached its final form tens of thousands of years ago. The ability to program computers, for example, appeared later, not through a process of natural selection but as a result of the human brain being so developed. According to Gold, language is also a result of the fact that we are so smart. Language, he argues, did not develop in an evolutionary course as a separate biological trait.

But a group of mathematicians led by Martin Noack of Princeton University challenged this view this week. In an article published in the journal "Nature" they propose a mathematical model that proves to them that language could have developed through a process of natural selection.

It is clear that the ability to convey messages improves the ability to survive. According to the model proposed by Noack and his colleagues, there may be situations in which members of the species can improve their survival if they increase the amount of messages they can transmit between them. If the language has no syntax, more and more symbols will be required to describe these messages. Since the number of voices that can be uttered is limited, signs that represent different messages may in such a situation be very similar, which will cause breakdowns and misunderstandings in communication.

Also, according to the researchers' calculations, if the repertoire of signs increases greatly, a situation will arise in which the users of this sign language will not have enough time in their lifetime to learn significant parts of it. Signs intended to indicate rare situations will in this case disappear from the lexicon, even if they indicate situations where communication is very important. According to the calculations they present, a language with a very simple syntax can be more efficient, in such circumstances, than a sign language without a syntax.

Their calculation not only deals with the question of the evolutionary circumstances that gave rise to the syntax, but also with the question of "jumping the step". While the conventional models claimed that it was impossible to gradually move from a developed non-syntactic language to a simple syntactic language that would be more efficient, in Noack's model the syntactic language started out as a very simple language with only nouns and verbs. This is no longer such a radical leap.

Nowak and his partners state that the great mystery has been solved. Language could have developed according to the accepted evolutionary rules. But they also admit that their model still does not explain how the simple language they describe made the long way to the matriculation exams in the language.
{Appeared in Haaretz newspaper, 5/4/2000{

Photo: Steve Rubin
Chomsky. "Whoever wants to tell stories about the origin of the language, let him tell
https://www.hayadan.org.il/BuildaGate4/general2/data_card.php?Cat=~~~300416123~~~201&SiteName=hayadan