How did human language begin?

[bkadoctaj]

So, I smoked two bowls and I've been doing some thinking. Language is clearly essential to all of humanity's achievements... without it, human individuals would be unable to communicate clearly and effectively to more than a small group of associates. So, where did language begin?

When we think of a language, we rarely consider the steps it must have gone through in order to develop into a full-fledged, abstract mode of communication. It's not a matter of what concepts the language covers... but rather, how the language evolved from thought. Some say that thought only occurs with languages to think in, but it is unlikely that the words formed themselves, so they must have reflected thoughts to begin with.

It might be natural to think that a language would have first formed when people pointed to objects and made a sound. This sound would have been repeated by other human beings, remembered by these human individuals, and used in sight of the object being named. It's a bit of a stretch, in my opinion, to presume that these human beings would be able to communicate any sort of abstract (as in not apparently real/plausible) idea with these "naming" words. These naming words, of course, would be nouns. These nouns would consist of people [possibly, but unlikely], places, and objects. Abstract and subjectivized nouns would not be found at the origins of language.

But are a collection of "nouns" (of course not grouped together as such during the formation of the language, as that would be an abstract concept) a language? No, they communicate what a person is focusing on. In other words, it's a temporary bridge created between two human brains. A suitable metaphor for this might be found within the brain itself: neurotransmitters. Words become the neurotransmitters traveling across the synapses of air (in other words, a suitable medium for audio-frequency wave transmission) between human beings and created within an organ inside the human-cell body (it is like a brain cell because its organs, like organelles, are systemically specialized). So, what am I getting at here? Cells communicate through neurotransmitters in order to cooperate. Likewise, humans communicate through words (strings of them to form languages and communicate complex, abstract thought) in order to cooperate. Why not to compete? The people you are close to, you probably want on your side, right? Especially before your neighbor is restrained by governmental laws and organized religion... wouldn't you want to get along? The people you are distant from, you need not communicate with, and if, by chance, you were to run into them, you wouldn't want to tell them you are going to kill them for trespassing anyway. (Better to get a free meal? Okay... a sick joke.)

So, from this idea that language was initially used to unite the wills of individuals in order to benefit the group, it seems clear to me that the groups that were best able to find and relate similarities between objects through early language would have been more effectively developed, and consequently quicker to discover the usefulness of separation/difference/distinction/specialization. So, first you'd have people looking at various stones on the ground, and after realizing that it would be best to come up with a single word to refer to each of the small chunks of petrified earth for communication's sake, forming their first ideal. The ideal in this case is that of a "rock". The ideal rock is that which best represents the multitude of rocks in existence - in other words, the ideal rock is the single rock least different from every other rock. But understanding that a multitude of similar objects may be labeled with one single word would also lead one to the conclusion (inevitably) that there is a perceivable difference between a rock and any non-rock.

Here's where things sort of balloon out, in my mind. So now you have people understanding that difference exists, but realizing they have no way to explain the differences nor to associate two totally different items beyond placing the two nouns together. That method would have left many questions for the listener. So what would have been necessary were "difference-explaining" words [or adjectives/ specialized nouns (once again, this is conceptual)]. In other words, these people needed a way to talk about parts/pieces of objects in order to say specifically which of their aspects are different. In order to form adjectives, a person would have to juxtapose two different objects with, say, a certain similarity. In order to further emphasize that the word being developed referred to the quality of the objects, a third item with the same characteristic might be shown, then a fourth, then...

What would come next? When would a counting system be formed, and how? How would verbs come about? How would one develop an understanding of absence, or that which is not there? How would humans move from simple objective description to complex abstract explanation? I think it's important to consider the needs that would develop as groups of people either settled down, grew larger, migrated and came into contact with others, or found a need for specialization.

EDIT: I think it's extremely important to note as well that abstract thought must have occurred well before any attempt to communicate it in a standard manner existed. Just the having the idea of speaking a language for a purpose is abstract in its essence. Seeing the effect of language (and the knowledge and/or lack of it) on others would likewise be abstract understanding. Perceiving and explaining time would certainly be abstract thought, and explaining the number of moons that have passed would require the abstraction of counting.

[Zylark]

Interesting topic. Like all else I think language went from simple to complex over a long period of time. Languages still evolve. Modern english compared to victorian english, are quite different for example.

Seeing as humanity started out as hunter-gatherers, I'd guess simple language emerged from the need to communicate hunting tactics (simlpe grunts representing yes/no, forward/back, left/right), dividing the loot with the tribe (more/less) and ofcourse names for individuals. Simple and very concrete terms.

Abstract concepts came much later. Together with counting. I saw an interesting documentary about history of numbers, I think Michael Palin was the narrator. In essense, numbers came from the transition of hunter/gatherer society and agricultural society. And with it trade and population centers. When there was a need for numbers, we invented them. And there's been quite the few numerological systems through history. Our 10 base system is from indian tradition for example. 0 through 9.

There are still hunter/gatherer tribes today that have no concept of numbers. They have one, two and many. That's it. No zero, no three.

Hmmm, I'll look around and see if I can find the title for that documantary. It was very good.

edit: found it. By the BBC, and is called "The Story of 1" with Terry Jones, not Palin. See it here.

(And like all documentaries featuring some ex-monthy python, you know it won't be dry and boring )

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by Zylark

Seeing as humanity started out as hunter-gatherers, I'd guess simple language emerged from the need to communicate hunting tactics (simlpe grunts representing yes/no, forward/back, left/right), dividing the loot with the tribe (more/less) and ofcourse names for individuals. Simple and very concrete terms.

I think those are all abstract relations... haha After all, you can't have left without right. The fact that two words must be created at once to complement one another suggests that that sort of development would come later.

Abstract concepts came much later. Together with counting. I saw an interesting documentary about history of numbers, I think Michael Palin was the narrator. In essense, numbers came from the transition of hunter/gatherer society and agricultural society. And with it trade and population centers. When there was a need for numbers, we invented them. And there's been quite the few numerological systems through history. Our 10 base system is from indian tradition for example. 0 through 9.

I believe it was the Arabs who invented the number zero. Before them, no civilization had used this concept... at least I believe so.

There are still hunter/gatherer tribes today that have no concept of numbers. They have one, two and many. That's it. No zero, no three.

Yeah, I've heard about that... Pretty interesting stuff. No matter how much you try to teach adults from those tribes math and counting, their minds just can't grasp/integrate them.

Hmmm, I'll look around and see if I can find the title for that documantary. It was very good.

Thanks for that link. I'll check that out.

[AlphaQ]

I have always wondered how complex language and written language developed. I suppose it could be similar to the modern development of language. To me, language seems to slightly parallel theories of evolution.

From generation to generation, new words are used created, new words replace old words that fade away. This is how dialects emerge: generally isolated groups of people have a different evolution of the same language.

I imagine at the dawn of civilization humans were much like animals with certain sounds used to communicate. Eventually more sounds developed to define different things and events. With more and more sounds, there soon becomes the ability to develop primitive languages. From there people passed on this language for generations and each generation would add to and change the language more and more.

The emergence of structured language probably comes from the need to easily and logically communicate. Without structure, every person can speak in his or her own semi-language which, I imagine, would be a bit confusing.

Originally Posted by bkadoctaj

I believe it was the Arabs who invented the number zero. Before them, no civilization had used this concept... at least I believe so.

It was the Indians that first came up with the modern concept of zero.

[GolgiApparatus]

I think we used language to convey different tangible objects.

But my ultimate question: When did language "jump" to convey tangible objects (water, food) to intangible objects (anger, sadness, grief, ect)

[the color green]

Maybe body language, we interpreted body language and then people made sounds that were associated with their body language.

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by GolgiApparatus

I think we used language to convey different tangible objects.

But my ultimate question: When did language "jump" to convey tangible objects (water, food) to intangible objects (anger, sadness, grief, ect)

Indeed... and how?

[phiegnux]

Mushrooms...

read Terence McKenna... youll have you answer... or an answer, rather.

[Zylark]

Originally Posted by bkadoctaj

I think those are all abstract relations... haha After all, you can't have left without right. The fact that two words must be created at once to complement one another suggests that that sort of development would come later.

Well, in a sense yes, but in a hunting situation, differing between left/right and forward/backward is crucial. But again, I'm just speculating. As to the origin of language I have something near zero clue But I will read up on it. As I've said, interesting topic.

Originally Posted by bkadoctaj

I believe it was the Arabs who invented the number zero. Before them, no civilization had used this concept... at least I believe so.

We call it arabic numerals, but they pinched it from the indians. Like everything else in muslim culture, it is stolen from other sources. Even the quran is basically a plagiarism of the bible.

[Rhythm of Life]

Just thought I put a little scientific information into this thread. Did you guys know that at the age of 6-7 months a baby is capable of creating sounds used in every language around the world. That is what babbling is. The older you get the fewer frequencies you can hear and produce. By the age of 17 I believe it is you can no longer develop speech patterns used in other languages. This is why its hard to learn languages later in life. Speech patterns developed later in life are created in a different part of the brain than what you use to converse in your original language. Meaning you will never become fluent in a language learned later in life.

[fvaambush]

You smoke to much

[HighGrowMan]

Human language began, in my opinion, at the same time that art began; the reason being is that they both demonstrate the communication of information, to a level that is not possible without structure.

From my understanding of history, mankind had managed to spread out all over the world, and yet was for a long period of time, still an animal. Then, there seems to be a change in all of mankind all over the world, when 'their eyes were opened' and the had a need to express their new found world.

In my opinion, the only rational explination for this is that in the genetic code, there was some sort of 'completion mechanism', that recognized the thought patterns, and evolutionary status, and then it kicked in and brought us to a new level.

This 'mechanism' be 'tied in' with the environment, and very sensitive to global changes.

In my opinion this 'mechanism' is still in us, basically sleeping until conditions are right. And once the criteria is met it will again, activate and bring us to another level of understanding.

[Zylark]

You might be on to something there Highgrow. As our frontal lobe grew, so did our conciousness and ability to think in the abstract. Thus also language and figurative art. The first examples of communication we do got is cave-art, that may very well be linked to or follows from language.