How Did Human Language Evolve? Scientists Still Don’t Know

By Bridget Alex | December 7, 2018 5:03 pm
Human language adaptations first appeared in our ancestors

Most scientists think language emerged in stages, as our ancestors evolved the necessary adaptations for speech. (Credit: Sergey Uryadnikov/shutterstock)

Humans have language and other animals don’t. That’s obvious, but how it happened is not. Since Darwin’s time, scientists have puzzled over the evolution of language. They can observe the present-day product: People today have the capacity for language, whether it be spoken, signed or written. And they can infer the starting state: The communication systems of other apes suggest abilities present in our shared ancestor.

But the million-dollar question is what happened in between. How did we transition from ape-like communication to full-fledged human language?

Most scientists think this happened in stages, as our ancestors evolved the adaptations needed for language. In earlier stages, human ancestors would have used a kind of protolanguage — more complex than ape communication, but lacking elements of modern language.

But what exactly was this protolanguage like? That’s where we hit considerable debate. Some researchers argue that our ancestors sang before they spoke. Others claim protolanguage was dominated by pantomimed gestures — a society built on charades.

Here, I’ll do my best to summarize prevailing models for language origins, drawing largely from a 2017 academic review by evolutionary biologist W. Tecumseh Fitch.

But first…

What Makes Language, Language

Before trying to explain how language evolved, we need to clarify exactly what evolved. We must define what language is and how it differs from the communication abilities of our closet evolutionary relatives, the great apes.

In human language, arbitrary sounds and signs represent specific words, which can be learned, invented and infinitely combined within grammatical structures. We can talk about anything we can think — plans, pancakes, politics — including what is not the case: “I have no plans to make pancakes or enter politics.” And many statements have specific meanings that are context dependent. For instance, “How are you?” can be a greeting, not a genuine inquiry. Language allows us to bond with others, or to deceive them. And although our native tongue is not innate, toddlers pick it up without conscious effort.

These qualities make language an extraordinary communication system found exclusively in humans. But the system can be dissected into components, or traits necessary for language. And these emerged at different times in our evolutionary past. Traits shared with other apes likely existed millions of years ago in our common ancestor. The traits we don’t see in other apes probably only emerged in hominins, the evolutionary branch that includes humans and our extinct relatives.

There are at least three elements of language only present in hominins:

First, is a fine-control over our vocal tracts. Other apes are likely born with a more limited repertoire of vocalizations. The difference comes down to how our brains are wired: Humans have direct connections between the neurons controlling our voice box and the motor cortex, the region of our brain responsible for voluntary movements. Brain scans show these connections are lacking in other primates.

Next is our tendency to communicate for the sake of communicating. To encapsulate this, biologist Fitch used the German word Mitteilungsbedürfnis, “the drive to share thoughts.” Whereas chimps use a finite set of calls and gestures to convey the essentials — food, sex and danger — humans talk to bond and exchange ideas, and strive to ensure we’re understood. Most researchers attribute this difference to an idea called “theory of mind,” the understanding that others have thoughts. Chimps demonstrate more limited theory of mind, whereas humans know that other humans think things — and we’re constantly using language to uncover and influence those thoughts.

The last difference is hierarchical syntax. Phrases and sentences have nested structure and these provide meaning beyond the simple sequence of words. For instance, take the sentence: “Chad, who was out to lunch with Tony, was late to the meeting.” Hierarchical syntax processing allows us to correctly interpret that Chad was late to the meeting, even though “Tony” is closer to the verb “was late.” Over 60 years ago and still today, linguist Noam Chomsky proposed hierarchical syntax as the key to language.

So hypotheses for language origins must explain (at least) these three traits: precise vocal learning and control, overtly social communication and hierarchical syntax.

Leading Views on Language Evolution

Now for the fun part: How did these components emerge, and eventually converge, to constitute language?

There are several prevailing views, which differ in terms of the evolutionary pressures favoring language adaptations, the order these adaptations arose and the nature of protolanguage along the way.

Some believe precise vocal control and learning was the first language trait to emerge in hominins — and not for speaking, but for singing. This idea of musical protolanguage comes from Darwin himself and has been modified over the years by different researchers. During this hypothetical singing stage of human evolution, our ancestors’ survival and/or reproductive success would have depended on serenading, in the context of maintaining social bonds, attracting mates or soothing infants. (Given my repulsion for acapella, I’d be evolutionarily unfit for this phase).

An alternate view envisions protolanguage characterized by gesture and pantomime. In this case, syntax and social communication would have preceded vocal prowess. The strength of the gestural hypothesis is that our closest relatives, chimpanzees, exhibit more controlled and variable gestures (over 70 and counting) than calls (4 types and more hard-to-distinguish subtypes). The weakness of this view is, it’s unclear why or how language became so speech-dominate.

Others, convinced that hierarchical syntax emerged last, propose a protolanguage with symbolic words, but no complex, nested sentences. According to this view, our pre-linguistic ancestors talked more like babies — “Water! Thirsty!” — or pop-culture’s image of cavemen — “Me hunt mammoth. Me want sex.”

These models aren’t mutually exclusive. Some researchers integrate them into successive stages, associated with different hominin species. Perhaps between 2 and 4 million years ago, Australopiths like Lucy were gifted singers. By 1.9 million years ago Homo erectus combined gestures and expressive vocalizations into group rituals. And hierarchical syntax only emerged some 200,000- 300,000 years ago with the appearance of our species, Homo sapiens.

This might all sound like speculation (and some scientists dismiss it as such, e.g. this commentary or Chomsky’s quote here). But many researchers beg to differ: Scientific models of language evolution derive from evidence gathered in comparative biology, neuroscience, genetics, linguistics and paleoanthropology. This includes data on how animals communicate, the brain and gene systems underlying language, the complexity of artifacts in the archaeological record and changes in anatomy and brain size, preserved in fossils. Most importantly, the models make predictions for future research — what should be found if that’s really how language origins went down.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Living World, Top Posts
ADVERTISEMENT
  • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/EquivPrinFail.pdf Uncle Al

    Language arose for two reasons:
    … 1) To seduce.
    … 2) To complain.

    One need only listen in an Inner City (prostitution of language right there) to appreciate the fragility of meaningful language. Language devolves through both simplicity (Ebonics) and complexity (dialectic).

    • StanChaz

      So are you seducing or complaining my dear fellow?
      Are those racially charged undertones I hear in your mumbling?

  • Paul Signac

    You may have to think about it, but ironically the capacity to symbolically communicate with others, by way of the spoken word, is but a minor miracle. Its development may give direction to the underlying positive selection behind early human evolution, but talk itself is cheap, it never powered our final leap. Instead the quality of the attribute that makes it truly distinct is not its role in communicating ideas, emotions or directives of action for the benefit of others, but rather its role in permitting a private internal dialogue. ‘Thinking-with-language’. It’s this that better permits us to model the internal and external worlds and thereby reduce the high energy consumption associated with trial and error solutions. No other animal can, or has ever, done this.

    • D Frank Robinson

      Language begat a sharpened individualism?

      • StanChaz

        Language is a double-edged sword

    • StanChaz

      Tell that to my incessant interior chatterbox while “I” try to meditate and modulate it.
      I think, therefore I falsely think that I am what I think and that I think what truly is.
      We may need to get beyond language to truly think and be,
      –as in the ground of our being, rather than the other way around..

  • OWilson

    Language arose over eons, from displays, body and facial expressions, screams, grunts, barks, through birdsong and whale sounds, all the way up to Shakespeare!

    Popular music contains primal grunts and hip thrusts that even a Neandertal would recognize today! :)

    • StanChaz

      I just saw and heard a classical pianist grunting and thrusting the other day!

      • OWilson

        Little Richard? Jerry Lee?

        God bless them both! :)

  • Reddog

    I’m going out on limb… Perhaps the manipulation of fire to cook food allowed our bodies to develop larger brains, and more brain power, and subsequently language skills. It could be that simple.

    • StanChaz

      Bigger brains in terms of size do not necessarily equate with brainier humans.
      Our erstwhile ancestors had bigger brains than we do.

  • Bruce Christie

    I think there may have been multiple steps in the logical side of these developments, including the innovation of naming. It’s very powerful and efficient to have names for things – it greatly improves our ability to process complex situations by providing compact representations for the elements present. “Stories” represent another major leap, probably built upon the compact representations of names and a desire to explain the world around us.

    • OWilson

      Language, to use a scientific metaphor, is merely “communication at a distance”.

      Nature provides examples throughout flora and fauna, from the primitive tactile communication of bacteria, trees that respond chemically to pest invasions, through the scents of flowers, to barks and pointing and your “naming”, to discussing! :)

      There’s a continuum of evidence, so It is not that hard to follow the gradual evolutionary developement over eons, to the present day human ability.

      Perhaps the “Scientists Still Don’t Know”, applies to the specific timelines and details of the process?

      • StanChaz

        Communication at a distance? True, we can never really get outside the isolating prison of our own bodies and engage in actual Star-Trekkian mind meld. But we try.
        However when I whisper sweet nothings into the ear of my beloved it’s not at exactly “at a distance”, but it’s the best I can do.
        Wonder of wonders, behold “the gradual evolutionary develop(e!)ment over eons to the present day human ability” to engage in Donald Trunp tweet tantrum. How the mighty have fallen!

        • OWilson

          Hollering, “watch out out for that tiger” is communication at a distance to most rational humans.

          It is NOT your “Star-Trekkian Mind Meld” nonsense.

          And, last time I looked your “mighty” guy was living in the WH and stacking the USSC with conservative judges, with the same public approval numbers as your other “hope and change” guy at the same time of his Presidency.

          You still have a little work to do!

          Good luck!

          Lol

    • StanChaz

      Naming is merely an obfuscation of reality – pale shadows and wispy self-deceptions that we use in our attempts to survive the fleeting chaos of our lives and “explain” it.
      Stories are myths built upon this illusory foundation and shaky house of cards.
      Language is a sad and ultimately failed attempt to break out of the lonely prison of our skin and be one with the universe…
      Names and stories and language are but walking shadows, poor players strutting and fretting their hour upon the stage and then heard no more. They are tales told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, truly signifying nothing.

  • Paul O

    I’m not sure you can use language to figure out where language came from, as this article and some of these comments are trying to do. Wouldn’t you have to step outside of it to be able to see where and how it got started? And what might that amount to?

    • StanChaz

      Good point. Using language to decipher language is like a snake bitting it’s own tail while starving. Poor fellow.

  • StanChaz

    Who says that we have evolved and made progress from ape-like efforts at communication?
    Just look at smocking Trump and his tweet tantrums.
    Heck, if anything, we’re moving backwards.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+