Babel's Dawn

Nova on Human Origins

I just watched the third part of the PBS television series on "Becoming Human." It barely discussed the origins of speech or language, which I suppose is just as well. Better to say nothing than to say something superficial and pretend that it is the whole story. Still, I'm struck by the fact that they did a three hour report tracing the human lineage over about 6 million years and had very little to say about the issues discussed routinely on this blog. The speech triangle, voluntary control of vocalizations, words, syntax ... nope.

Thanks

Thanks to Angela Peterson whose list of 100 Best Blogs for Psychology Students puts Babel's Dawn at number 34.

The FOXP2 Molecular Network Begins Taking Shape

The FOXP2 gene as illustrated by Simon Fisher (Oriel College, Oxford), the investigator who first isolated the FOXP2 gene.

Download PDF version of this post

A letter to the current issue of Nature has caused a stir among those interested in the evolution of language. It looks at the FOXP2 gene in more detail than any paper has ever done before. It also inspires at least as many questions as it answers, but now at least we have better questions. Also it has dealt yet another blow to the theory that language depends on distinct cognitive modules that permit internal thought and that later interface with motor modules (vocalizing or signing) for “externalizing” what you are thinking. If anything is becoming apparent from FOXP2, it is that language and motor activities are deeply entangled. It also provides more reason to doubt the original recent date ascribed to the gene's mutations.

The letter, titled, “Human-specific transcriptional regulation of C[entral] N[ervous] S[ystem] development genes by FOXP2,” was written by a large team represented by Genevieve Konopka and Daniel Geschwind (abstract here). The journal also had a summary article on the study, “The Importance of Being Human,” by Martin H. Dominguez and Pasko Rakic (abstract here).

The story so far: The FOXP2 gene is a highly stable gene, changing very little over millions of years, but it has changed twice since the last common ancestor with chimpanzees and bonobos, and it turns out to be important to the proper development of language. It cannot be directly responsible for speech, however, because it works by regulating the activity of other genes. (See: The Human FOXP2 Gene) The gene’s role in vocalization has been strengthened by evidence that FOXP2 is crucial in songbirds for enabling young birds to learn how to imitate the songs of their elders, (see: Birds Also Use FOXP2) and making echolocation sounds in bats (see: The Latest on the FOXP2 Gene). A year ago British researchers identified a “downstream” gene (CNTNAP2) regulated by FOXP2. Their report ended by saying that their work was a first step in understanding molecular networks affecting language. (See: A Second Gene Supports Language). Now it is time for another step.

The Helping Impulse

Human children around the world are put in the care of adults who are not their mothers. It is so common we take it for granted, but it is very unusual among apes.

Download a PDF file of this post

I’ve just read an article in the latest journal of Evolutionary Anthropology that confirms this blog is not alone in many of the most radical positions that it has taken. The view of human nature emerging from the effort to understand language origins differs dramatically from the classic Western position that reason separates us from the animals, and from the Romantic view of the lone genius who pulls civilization along. Those widespread assumptions have strongly influenced the view that language arose when we became smart enough to think syntactically and/or recursively, or when we became creatively enough to think symbolically. They are the commonsense assumptions that still dominate popular media discussions of language and human origins, but have now been challenged now by strong empirical data.

In a paper titled, “Cognitive Breeding and Human Cognitive Evolution,” (abstract here) Judith Burkart, Sara Hrdy, and Carel van Schaik build on findings that

• apes have a strong ability to understand the thoughts and intentions of others but they use that knowledge to compete and control, not cooperate or help, and
• apes are inventive and create useful tools for themselves, but they do not build on one another’s ideas.

Language is the great demonstration of these differences. It requires a willingness to share (cooperate and help) and modify (build on) existing words and phrases. But that observation provokes an obvious question: how did we become so hypersocial? The authors’ answer is via “cooperative breeding.”

A New Linguistic Process?

Download PDF of this post

Here’s a book with a novel thesis: the English language has been, to coin a term, Vikingized. A creolized language is a grossly simple pidgin language that has been turned into a syntactically-complex mother tongue. A Vikingized language is the opposite: a syntactically-complex natural language that has been turned into something simpler. Creolization reflects the natural ability of children to communicate richly. Vikingization reflects the natural difficulty adults have learning the subtleties of a foreign language. I find myself intrigued by the idea because I can immediately think of two other languages—Swahili and Afrikaans—that are candidates for the same historical process. If investigation supported that thought, and other Vikingized languages can be identified, John McWhorter’s book (coming out in paperback tomorrow, Nov. 3)—Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue: The Untold History of English—will have proved to be a real breakthrough in linguistic theory.

New From MIT

A couple of new books that are not quite on the topic of this blog, but are of related interest to regulars on this blog:

Michael Tomasello, Why We Cooperate is a new title from  one of this blog's heroes. I have reported much of this before, but it is succinct and clear. Also includes commentary from other scholars.

Ray Jackendoff, Language, Consciousness, Culture: Essays on Mental Structure comes from a generative grammarian who has found his own way since his school days with Chomsky. The book has been in hardcover for a while, but is now in paperback.

Intermediate Syntax

Me Tarzan. — You Jane. Could anybody have ever really talked in that super-simple manner?

Download PDF of this post

A plausible account of the evolution of syntax is coming into view. I had almost despaired. 

Most syntacticians (I believe) still hold the view that syntax must have come as an all or nothing package, a proposition I consider an evolutionary absurdity. 

Second, even when it is discussed in evolutionary or biological contexts syntax is presented in syntactically formal terms that provides no clue as to how the formal operation can be translated into something important to natural selection. 

Finally, I don’t believe syntax, as formally described, is much of a help to people when they are trying to figure out the best way to say something. I know that whenever I give editorial advice, I talk about a completely different set of issues from technical discussions about moving phrases, etc. The formal system is great for mechanical operations in which the machine has no awareness of what it is doing, but does not really address the experience of using language. If editing really worked best at the unconscious level, all these thoughts about helping the reader follow along should just get in the way. Instead, they help get it right.

At the same time, syntax is obviously important and has to be accounted for. “Syntax” was one of the original categories for posting on this blog, but I have long doubted that I would have much to report. Lately, however, things are looking more promising. I am especially encouraged by a paper, “Sex and Syntax” (here) by Ljiljana Progovac in the current Biolinguistics. 

Another Speech-Related Gene Identified

I've been trying to track down information on a presentation this week in Honolulu at the American Society of Human Genetics Convention. Raymond Clarke of New South Wales, Australia reports that a gene, called the "tospeak" gene has been identified as being important in proper shaping of the vocal tract and voice box. The gene itself is exclusive to primates, and the human version differs from that of other primates. In a response to an e-mail query from me, Dr. Clarke says,“The birth and evolution of the tospeak gene may represent the key evolutionary change to the human genome and our anatomical capacity to speak." It sounds suspiciously enthusiastic to my ears, but until I learn more I can't say. 

I'm looking. 

Rethinking After a Surprise

George W. Bush was no dummy, but he was stubborn. No matter what new facts developed, he claimed that they proved what he had said all along. He devoted so much effort to gaining intelligence and then when he got the facts he did not rethink..

Download this post

The “Ardi” fossil (see: New Details on 4.4 Million Year Old Hominid) lived long before speech is suspected; even so it has overturned scenarios of human origins by removing chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas as reference points when considering the habits and appearance of the last common ancestor (LCA) of chimpanzees/bonobos/humans. 

The discovery that knuckle-walking evolved separately in the chimpanzee and the gorilla is not a total shock—I have read anatomists who predicted as much—but it did contradict conventional opinion. It used to be that if chimpanzees had one trait (C) and humans had another trait (H), we tended to assume that C was a trait of the LCA and H was an evolved trait. This tendency was especially strong if the C trait was also found in gorillas. But what can we assume now about the LCA? Did it gesture like chimpanzees? Was it as smart as a chimpanzee? How far back toward square one must we go?

How Old Is Language?

Rene Descartes was probably the last great thinker to try to explain the universe on the basis of definitions and logic alone, but he was not the last savant to explain the mind that way.

Download PDF of this post

I had thought I would skip reporting on Bart de Boer’s presentation in Torun. I have already covered his work on the loss of air sacs (see: Fossil Evidence of Speech?) in the human lineage. In Torun he presented experimental evidence that strengthens his case for the idea that as precision of speech sounds became more important, the air sacs used for ape vocalizations became a problem, but much of the presentation matched the one given in Barcelona. I changed my mind about reporting, however, after I began looking at the new online issue of Biolinguistics.. One of the papers directly contradicts de Boer’s conclusion, so I thought this might be a good time to take a look at the different approaches.

One of de Boer’s slides (available here) said:

Hypothesis: —Neanderthals could speak, Australopithecines not —(proto) speech is at least 500,000 years old.

Meanwhile a Biolinguistics paper by Dennis Ott (available here) proposes:

It therefore seems reasonable to assume that the human I-language trait is at most 100,000 years old, its emergence having facilitated the ‘Upper Paleolithic Revolution.’ [257; italics author’s]

We seem to have a disagreement of, at a minimum, 400,000 years.

The Word-Sentence Continuum

Run ... women run ... the women are running.

Download PDF file of this post

I managed to inspire a bit of a hullaballoo last week with my contention that protolanguage had done its job and it was now time to discard the term in favor of just talking about language evolution. The founder of the protolanguage concept, Derek Bickerton, posted a comment defending the word’s continuing utility (comment here) and plugging his book. My main point was that once speech got going, it just kept evolving, so we would do better to ask how did it start? and what came next? rather than looking for changes that prepared the way for what followed.

An example of what I mean was given in Jim Hurford’s presentation at the Torun, Poland conference on protolanguage. Two of his “take-away” points were:

• There is a lexicon-syntax continuum (i.e. words evolve into syntax).
• There has been a gradual continuous evolution of syntax.

Hurford discussed the evolution of predicates, the part of a sentence that tells us something about the subject. His very rich analysis suggests that it is the social context that makes the syntax interesting, not the other way around. He then proceeded to show how predication can evolve from social situations without requiring any rewiring of the brain.

New Details on 4.4 Million Year Old Hominid

Notice anything dubious about this screen-capture of the Discovery Channel's "Ardi" page? Ardi's eyes have white sclera. What is the evidence for that? Primate eyes tend to have black sclera. Having whites of eyes is a peculiar human trait, one that means we make redirecting attention easy. Could Ardi do that? I've seen no reason to think so. (Check out this webpage here.)

A team of scientists have announced in a special issue of Science magazine new details resulting from the extensive study of a series of Ardipthecus ramidus fossils from 4.4 million years ago. The centerpiece of the new report concerns a skeleton of a female the team has nicknamed "Ardi." Although not complete, the skeleton includes the skull, teeth, arms, hands, pelvis, legs, and feet. All in all, it makes for a bad day to be defending creationism. The project's co-director, Tim White, said, "It's not a chimp. It's not a human. It shows us what we used to be."

Ardipithecus lived long before speech in any form is suspected to have evolved, but the report does have implications for language-origin theory. In particular, Ardipithecus seems to have had a completely unexpected social arrangement. Ardi is estimated to have weighed about 110 pounds (50 kg), making her more or less equal in size to her male conspecifics. The difference in sizes for the diferent sexes that is found in chimpanzees and especially gorillas does not appear to have been found in ramidus. Sexual dimorphism (as sex-based size differences are called) commonly reflect strong competition among males for sexual access to females. A lack of dimorphism suggests a lack of competition. This finding raises new questions for Terrence Deacon and his theory that symbolism developed in response to a need to limit competition between males over females. If the competition disappeared two million years before the first Homo, it is  hard to credit Deacon's account of language origins.

I asked Deacon for a comment and he replied:

My argument is NOT that low sexual dimorphism is a correlate of symbol use, in general, it is only a correlate of minimal male-male competition. So my argument is only that that a *reduction* in sexual dimorphism from our more immediate ancestors the australopithecines (which we can now assume must have increased in sexual dimorphism since ardipithecines) indicated a reduction in overt male-male competition (over compulatory access). The ardi data is in this respect no more relevant than the gibbon data.

 The press kit had an astonishing speculative account of behavior:

Ardipithecus probably had a social structure unlike that of any living primate—one in which multiple males and multiple females lived together, but without strong male-male conflicts. Males were probably pair-bonded to specific females, and may have aided females by gathering rare and valuable foods that they would regularly share with them.

Among the other surprising findings:

• The species is not much like a chimpanzee, suggesting that chimpanzees and bonobos have evolved quite considerably since the last common ancestor with humans. We can no longer assume the last common ancestor was much like a chimpanzee in behavior or anatomy.
• Although Ardipithecus was bipedal, it was as well adapted to climbing trees as to walking on the ground.
• Its foot retained the grasping toe of a chimpanzee, indicating that it did not have the arched foot of an Australopithecus.
• The face was neither flat and massive as the later Australopithecus, nor projecting like a modern ape.
• The hand shows no signs of specialization for knuckle walking (like chimps and gorillas) and no signs of having evolved from a hand that ever knuckled walked. This detail indicates that the knuckle walking of chimpanzees and gorillas evolved twice along separate, convergent lines.
• The brain was about 300-350 cc, just slightly smaller than a modern chimpanzee.

UPDATE: John Hawks' Weblog found a nice little zinger on the idea of monogamous Ardis here. Poloygamy and serial relations are so common today, I wonder how all that could flow from a monogamous past.

Protolanguage After Torun

Nicholas Copernicus University in Torun, Poland hosted the "Ways to Protolanguage" conference last week.

The conference on “ways to protolanguage” held in Torun, Poland this week provided a good, maybe even grand, view of where thinking about the protolanguage concept stands. It was so successful that it left me doubting the concept’s further utility. Like Wittgenstein’s ladder, we’ve used it to climb to new heights. Now let’s toss it aside. 

New Site

Last week's American TV series Mad Men closed its episode with a father showing his daughter her newborn brother. The father explained that we don't yet know who the baby is. I'm reminded of that because a new site called the Pleistocene Coalition has been launched and, like a baby, we don't know what will it will turn out to be, but there it is, a new bit of promise for you to look at.