Language
61 INT. INTERVIEW CHAMBER – DAY 61 […] Louise finishes drawing. Shows the board to Abbott. Puts it against the boundary. She's attempted freehand drawing their gorgeous logograms, and she's actually done a great job. It's not quite the phrasing; she hasn't taught them "why" but instead uses "heptapods purpose Earth" with a curl on the logogram for Earth. Abbott stares a beat. And writes on the podium. As the logogram glows on the divider, Louise steps back in shock. She's translated it already. IAN What does it say? LOUISE "Offer weapon."
62 INT. OPERATIONS TENT/WAR ROOM – DAY 62 An eruption of sound and chaos, joining in mid-debate with several people talking at once. Halpern is among them. […] LOUISE We don't know if they understand the difference between a weapon and a tool. Our language, like our culture, is messy. In many cases one thing can be both.
***
Tracing the origins
We know that written language based on an ordered alphabet was invented only once, around 3,700 years ago by the Canaanites. But when did this perhaps universal and unique human communication system start? The paleontological record indicates that, in general terms, the anatomy of australopith species (e.g., “Lucy”) indicates that, essentially, these hominins were “biped apes.” Anthropologist Richard Klein thinks that the absence of any dramatic changes in their endocast or audio-vocal apparatus indicates that there were no speech capability differences from those of our living closest relatives [1]. However, at some point between 3 and 2 million years ago, the first fossils attributed Homo, the “human genus,” appear in the fossil record, as well as the evidence of advanced communication. Of course, no one was there to record their conversations, so anthropologist Steven Kuhn suggests we turn to “biological signaling theory” [2]:
Signaling theory from biology suggests that shifts in technologies over the course of the Pleistocene reflect problems in coordinating action and resolving conflicts within increasingly large and internally differentiated societies.
Steven Kuhn, 2014
Early Stone Age
There are, perhaps, older purposive stone tools [3], but clearly, around 2.5 million years ago, stone tools of the Oldowan complex became increasingly widespread in the archeological record of Africa. Even though these are not sophisticated tools, it requires a long period of time to master the skills necessary to make them. We learn by imitation, but we learn faster when following instructions. Klein thinks that given that Oldowan-type tools appear consistently in the archeological record for hundreds of thousands of years, some sort of rudimentary language was at play.
The Acheulean complex first appears in the African archeological record around 1.7 million years ago. Famous for its hand axes, symmetry characterizes many of these tools. Klein relates this to another more complex yet still primitive form of language.
Middle Stone Age
A variety of more complex lithic tools appear, including the combination of stone tools and wooden handles. This period of African prehistory started around 500,000 years ago. Similar advances occur in the Eurasian Middle Paleolithic, beginning 300,000 years ago. For the first time, possible material cultural representing possible examples of personal ornaments, such as the use of pigments, appear (following the use of caves, fireplaces). Kuhn argues that this advent in material culture could reflect an increased need for signaling and coordination among increasingly larger groups [4].
Getting fancier
Soon after 100,000 years ago, personal ornaments such as beads first appeared in different sites of southern and northern Africa and the Levant. They were made of minimally modified animal materials (e.g., shells with pre-existing holes). Kuhn thinks that, compared to pigments, these bead body decorations last longer and, importantly, can be transferred among individuals. In other words, the meaning of what they represent can outlast individual encounters and the individuals themselves.
The first “true” language
Klein argues that “full-fledged” language appeared starting 50 thousand years ago. The rationale for this inference is the apparition, soon after, of clearly designed personal ornaments and art. The first evidence of the latter comes in the form of cave paintings and little sculptures from different sites outside of Africa. However, Klein argues that the starting point of such innovations was surely the mother continent.
Kuhn believes that the increasing presence of costly signaling materials, some of which were buried with the dead, indicates the need for higher group identity, transmitted through generations. This could relate to the differentiation of social groups within a larger population: The more individuals, the larger their differences, the more complex the coordination among the parts.
The story above is the story of the human genus (Homo). But is the story of the “true” human language the story of Homo sapiens? Yes, allegedly [5].
Universal?
Human language is complicated. What’s a book? Don Quixote, for example, it’s both a physical object on my shelf, but also in yours. It’s also immaterial content: It’s a pdf on my computer and an epub document on your tablet. But we all know what a book is, right?
Imagine aliens were trying to understand the human communication system during their first recognition expeditions to Earth. Polymath Noam Chomsky argues that they would conclude that the more than 6,000 languages spoken by the different peoples of this spinning vessel are just variations of the same thing. Under Chomsky’s view, many human languages are, in fact, political constructs. For example, the language spoken in Beijing and Shanghai is called “Chinese.” No reason to say that the language in Rio de Janeiro and Bucharest is not “Romance” [6].
The theory of universal grammar proposes that humans possess an innate (i.e., genetically determined) faculty for language. As such, any human brought up under “normal” conditions will naturally develop a language with different basic properties such as nouns, verbs, and adjectives. Of course, some differences among languages in the vocabulary and the order of elements (e.g., the position of the adjective relative to the verb) exist among languages. These differences might sound funny to speakers from another mother language, but we still understand what’s being communicated:
English arranged by a Spaniard: The house old is very pretty.
English arranged by Yoda: Very pretty the old house is.
Children worldwide need to learn the specific syntactic rules and vocabulary of the place they were born into. However, the basic parameters and rules remain the same. Chomsky thinks that this structural basis is determined by the organizational constraints of the human brain.
Unique?
Chomsky and colleagues think that language is a human species-specific innate capability. Of course, all living organisms exhibit some sort of communication system: from the bird’s songs, the wolf’s howling, to the whale singing, and the chimpanzee calls. These faculties are possible thanks to common biological mechanisms such as possessing lungs, a descended larynx, or lips to articulate different sounds; or having hearing and neural systems to receive and process them. However, Chomsky and colleagues argue that, unlike other animals, we have concepts and mental computational mechanisms for recursion. This latter implies the capability to create an infinite range of expressions from a given—finite—set of elements. This uniquely human capability is what Chomsky and colleagues call a “faculty of language in the narrow sense.” This basic hypothesis underlies the theory of the human universal grammar.
Chomsky and colleagues hypothesize that this uniquely human recursive faculty of language might have evolved for reasons other than language. Examples include solving complex computational problems such as number quantification. Chimpanzees can learn numbers, and they can outcompete humans in how fast they remember a given sequence. However, they also need to memorize the sequence; they do not naturally understand why the number 4 follows 3 follows 2 follows 1. But they are better than us at photographic memory. Perhaps, some recursive capabilities could be present in other animals as well. But unlike in us, these are not applied to language. Perhaps, after the split of the chimpanzee and human lineages, our language evolved with some mental tradeoffs…
Evidence in favor of universal grammar comes from, among others, experiments with young children, which already understand syntactic categories by age 2. In other words, children learn how to combine words in a meaningful way (e.g., I love mommy) before they have been formally instructed. Others, like developmental psychologist Michael Tomasello, argue that although some aspects of human language have a biological (innate) basis, there is no such thing as a universal grammar [7]. Children need to learn their language to understand the other’s intentions, and this occurs very early. Anything resembling an innate language capability comes from other biological constraints in human cognition, vocal-auditory processing, etc. Cognitive psychologist and author Steven Pinker clarifies that Chomsky represents only one of the many views on this heavily debated and complex topic. Pinker thinks that, over the last decades, Chomsky has acted as a “piñata” every time someone identifies anything relative to human language that is learned. The reason is that Chomsky is very popular, also for reasons other than linguistics (e.g., due to his sociopolitical views). Hence, some folks just feel satisfying to hit such a big target (or piñata). Unfortunately, such a narrow focus derails from the essential discussions, Pinker argues.
***
Human language acts as the interface between the physical and the inter-mental worlds. It has been a very long path since the first stone tools, beads, the Altamira paints, Cervantes’ writings, and the iPhone. But the relationship between the use of physical objects for communication and the evolution of human thought is clear. Could it also act as a barrier to efficient communication? What would the alien heptapods think of this creation we are so proud of? [8]
Notes
[1] At least when it comes to their bony anatomy. Some of this section is based on this review:
Klein, Richard G. “Language and human evolution.” Journal of Neurolinguistics 43 (2017): 204-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2016.11.004
[2] This essay also follows, from a distance, the following review:
Kuhn, Steven L. “Signaling theory and technologies of communication in the paleolithic.” Biological Theory 9 (2014): 42-50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-013-0156-5
[3] See a part of the debate here:
Harmand, Sonia, Jason E. Lewis, Craig S. Feibel, Christopher J. Lepre, Sandrine Prat, Arnaud Lenoble, Xavier Boes, et al. “3.3-million-year-old stone tools from Lomekwi 3, West Turkana, Kenya.” Nature (2015) 521: 310-15. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14464
Domínguez-Rodrigo, Manuel, and Luis Alcalá. “3.3-Million-Year-Old Stone Tools and Butchery Traces? More Evidence Needed.” PaleoAnthropology (2016): 46-53. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303692567
[4] See also this study:
Brooks, Alison S., John E. Yellen, Richard Potts, Anna K. Behrensmeyer, Alan L. Deino, David E. Leslie, Stanley H. Ambrose, et al. “Long-distance stone transport and pigment use in the earliest Middle Stone Age.” Science 360, no. 6384 (2018): 90-94. https://doi.org/doi:10.1126/science.aao2646
I recommend watching this short video that Science created to summarize the research above:
“Signs of symbolic behavior emerged at the dawn of our species”
[5] There is an ongoing debate about the mental capabilities of our sister species: Homo neanderthalensis. They might have lacked an advanced verbal language like ours. Still, they used personal ornaments, buried their dead, and made sophisticated constructions. In other words, they were, somehow, communicating.
Read the following for a couple of examples of the above:
Jaubert, Jacques, Sophie Verheyden, Dominique Genty, Michel Soulier, Hai Cheng, Dominique Blamart, Christian Burlet, et al. “Early Neanderthal constructions deep in Bruniquel Cave in Southwestern France.” Nature 534 (2016): 111-14. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18291
Rodríguez-Hidalgo, A., J. I. Morales, A. Cebrià, L. A. Courtenay, J. L. Fernández-Marchena, G. García-Argudo, J. Marín, et al. “The Châtelperronian Neanderthals of Cova Foradada (Calafell, Spain) used imperial eagle phalanges for symbolic purposes.” Science Advances 5, no. 11 (2019): eaax1984. https://doi.org/doi:10.1126/sciadv.aax1984
[6] This section follows some studies discussed in the following review:
Hauser, Marc D., Noam Chomsky, and W. Tecumseh Fitch. “The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?”. Science 298 (2002): 1569-79. https://doi.org/doi:10.1126/science.298.5598.1569
Learn more about Chomsky’s views watching this lecture:
“Noam Chomsky speaks about Universal Linguistics: Origins of Language”
[7] This part is based on this discussion in Scientific American:
“Is Chomsky’s Theory of Language Wrong? Pinker Weighs in on Debate”
[8] These questions have a real-life example, not so different from the human-heptapod misunderstanding regarding the meaning of “weapon” and “tool.” The story goes that the word “mokusatsu” could have been responsible for the atomic bombing of Japan ending World War II.
Thanks to Antonio Rodríguez-Hidalgo for his guidance in my time travel through the Stone Age, and for pointing out the “mokusatsu” incident.
The cover image (and following script text) is a still from Arrival (credit: Xenolinguistics), based on Ted Chiang’s “Story of Your Life” short story.