**

OUTLINE

Narrowed topic to: Origins of earliest spoken language

Examine origins of language in 3 biggest areas: physiological (cranial and postcranial 1, evolution/how quickly it appeared, genetics, possible adaptive advantages), cognitave (innate vs. learned, syntax, idea of concepts), historical (adaptive advantages of lang, stages it went through)

NOTES REFERENCE:

Each point that is references from notebook notes is labeled with N for notebook and a number (green page #)

Thesis: Examine origin of language in 3 biggest areas: physiological (cranial, postcranial), cognitive (innate/learned, first concepts, syntax) and historical (adaptive advantages, timeframe, stages/protolang?)

************

PHYSIOLOGICAL: 3 main areas, cranial and postcranial, and genetic

Cranial

--usually associated with brain size

*dif brain sizes for dif species

-earliest "advanced" brain occurred 1.6 mya (N14)

-afarensis-habilis brain size increase, 25%; erectus-sapiens 90% (Binkerton 161)

*as dome shape of brain increased, size increased; esp. in parietal, frontal lobes---this doming also

indicated neural reorganization (N8)—use as segue into "Brain areas areas"

*But why increase?

*whatever it was, expansion occurred relatively rapidly (N15)

--BUT bigger brain size doesn’t necessarily mean it was used for lang (N11): strucutres predece function, idea from Darwin (N11)… SO:

--Brain areas areas

*there are specific areas that control specific aspects of lang

*left hemisphere concerned w/sequential processes, right concerned with simultaneous aspects

of lang use (asymmetrical brains) (N3); left more important cuz it controls motor pathways

leading to speech (tongue, etc) (N3)

*Broca and Wernicke’s areas

-Phillip Tobias finds Broca’s area on habilis (N18)

-habilis had beginnings of Broca’s (N7); also signs of prolonged infant dependency

-erectus had thin hips, so infants born w/small heads = postnatal brain development, (N7 and

Wisdom of Bones)

-Broca associated w/production of sentences (Binkerton 194); Wernicke’s is lexical (Bink194)

*Also must have developed for reasons other than lang (N19)

-maybe: ability for lang developed w/other fine motor skills, throwing/pointing, expanded

certain parts of brain later used for speech (N19)

-lang requires certain auditory pathways; again, strucutres precede function (N11)

Postcranial

--larynx

*it’s a valve sitting high in throat to cut off air from esophagus (N17)

*descent makes speech possible; causes choking (N1)

-makes speech possible by enlarging pharynx, lets it modify sounds to greater degree, also

allows tongue to move more freely, be anchored in supralangryal passage (N8)

-this creates a "concert hall" giving our voices resonance (N17)

-this means lang adaptation outweighed choking risk (N8)

*why did descend? For speech, or consequence of bipedalism? (N2)

--other throat features

*our vocal chords more developed than chimps (N2)

*cortical control (some apes have to give alarm calls) (N5—refer to book)

*how vocal tract developed, favored (N5—refer to book)

--facial features

*we can articulate better than any animal; requires fine coordination of lips/throat (N17)

*vision subordinate to sound in lang (N5—refer to book)

*early hominid face (austro, habilis??) not adapted to speaking, but eating; rough heavy jaws (N7)

*later on (S.Africa discoveries), shortened face, larger cranium, shorter teeth---made for speaking, not

eating---accommodate short rounded human tongue; curve of basicranium linked to human supra-

laryngal tract: both modifications for speech (N7—8)

*Whyd all this shit happen? To accommodate new domed brain (N8)

--other postcranial anatomy

*diet, environment prepared hominids for lang (N5—refer to book)

Genetic

--IF lang innate, is there a gene for it? Prolly not; may just be related to greater brain size (N3)

--genetic perspectives—Chomsky and language as a genetic even tthat molded together an array of traits that evolved for other purposes (N6, refer to book)

--or it could be other way around: language is genetic now b/cuz our ancestors adapted to use of lang and there might not be specific lang "gene"----might just spring from greater brain size that was selectively bred into human populations by natural selection (N3)

COGNITIVE –psychofuckinganalyzing half-complete skeletons (not dealing with who, or when, but HOW)

What we can do that the monkeys can’t

--What they can do is pretty damn close to language:

**chimps can categorize, recognize individual names, common/proper nouns (N4)

--So this all sounds like lang---what things do they NOT have that are key to lang?

--don’t have SYNTAX (N4)

--don’t have constructional learning: humans make inferences from what they already know (N5)

--don’t really have symbols: to prove this, need concrete proof like cave paintings (N13)

Order (what we needed for lang and how we got it!)

--Lang defined as "symbolic use of communicative signs" (N11)

--Lang firstly a classification/representation system to organize world (N2)

*humans put world into categories they can understand (N2—more on this there); way of "knowing the

world" via categories (N4).

-categories preceded lang: lang simply defined them and labeled them, move from unconscious

to conscious groupings (N4)

-categories require 3 things: object in external world, patterns of cell activity in brain, observer’s

internal/external response (N4)

-can be grouped not only by similarities that exist, but by similar behavior responses (N4 more)

-categories not originally used for communication, but for talking to oneself/organizing one’s

own world (N16)---later on used for communication (N16)

*how they got categories: silly name theories (N6—Vico book, 6—7)

--Symbolic behavior

*first represent objects, next represent concepts; "how did action come to be employed for representation

of concepts"? (N13)

*again capacity of "displacement"---referring to things that not only aren’t there, but don’t exist at all

(like love) (N13)

-what makes it possible is symbolism: linguistic signs stand for concept of something rather

than thing itself (N14)

-lang doesn’t create conceptual system, only represents it: means that lang may have less to do w/

speech and more w/ability to hold concepts---aka BRAIN, COGNITIVE abilities (N14)

--Self-awareness/culture

*members of a species must recognize gestures as more than communication and as a means whereby to

communicate---this will help them consciously develop it further (N11)

*lang must be a social process at heart: requires interaction (N10)

-you wouldn’t develop lang alone (N12)

-all social sections "linguistically mediated", lang might have originally also helped

develop/navigate social relationships (N12)

-culture require cooperation which requires sharing a common goal: this requires discussion

of abovementioned concepts (N14)

--Put ‘em together, you get how language evolved:

*gestural language prolly came first (N9)

-Tangent: our gesture system hasn’t changed since ancient times; our spoken lang has (N16)

-means human lang prolly didn’t emerge as "elaboration or evolutionary outgrowth of our

own gesture-call system" (N16), so must be bound up in our cognitive abilities (N16)

-not possible for our "primate calls" to have evolved into language and our "primate

gestures" not evolve the same way; thus lang must have sprung from somethin else (N16)

*expanded lexicon, combined words to make new concepts; words as metaphors for new concepts (N10)

* "second-order intentionality" (N11) comes in somewhere here, lets hominids develop lang purposefully

*Foster: next came assembly instructions (N10); lang is process of "ongoing symbolization" (N11)

-austro had primitive gestures used for reference and request (pointing, etc.) (N10, chart)

-habilis had expanded lexicon, simple "assembly instructions" (N10, foster/chart)

--Syntax next

--Paris’s model for syntax

Innate?

2 Camps (represented here by their biggest supporters)

--INNATE Chomsky: Says some aspects of lang hardwired into brain; partially genetic process (N3)

*Evidence:

-kids pick up lang w/out being exposed to proper lang 24/7; pick up grammar (N3)

-grammar independent of meaning—things can be grammatical but make no sense (N3)

-animals have "the ability to convey ideas by means of symbols that the receiver understands"

but not language

-babies have preference for speechlike sounds over other types; even babble in same way

(N19)

-kids all begin speaking same way: labels, then subject/verb, then subject/verb/modifier (N19)

*Syntax, not lexicon, is wired in (N6, Binkerton 193)---seems diffuse thruout brain (Bink194)

-why? Not based on a location where "rules" are stored, but syntax based on actual

mode of neural processing---syntax follows brain’s natural thinking process (Bink194)

-humans have "innate tendency to construct langs that encode set of basic semantic

distinctions"---divide concepts into several categories like actions, states, processes,

etc. (N9)

-to continue above example, animals don’t have syntax---it’s our own unique adaptation (N17)

-there’s a "deep syntax that is common to us all" (N17)

-when people of dif. languages thrown together, they make new langs that are syntactic:

creoles and pidgins; sign language is syntactic (N17)

-kids automatically try to make lang more syntactic than it is ("eated") (N19)

*WHY innate?

-social behavior changes lay neurological basis for syntatic communication, it demands

symbolic creation and exchange (N7)

--NOTINNATE Whorf: Says lang arbitrary classification system that differs w/every lang + people (N2)

--"Eve" boy sez: universal aspects of human language show that all humans have to learn mother tongues from scratch rather than having knowledge of lang innate in their minds (N20)

*YET he accepts that all langs have nouns and verbs (N20)

HISTORY

Time/Development

--gestural

--protolanguage

*didn’t require complex brain, so appeared first (N4, Binker130)

-had lexicon but no syntax, since syntax must be expressed thru syntax (Bink131); might not have

even been preadaption for syntax—could have developed later (Bink131)

--First off: "No direct evidence exists concerning the behavior of extinct human populations… these stages must be inferred… we simply cannot know with certainty what stages human beings may have pushed through on their way to the development of modern languages" (N1)

Who

--erectus prolly had no real lang, but protolang (N6)

When

Why (did it develop, is it biologically advantageous?)

--SJ Gould says language a simple biproduct of bigger brain: a "spandel" like in bridge (N1)

--Stephen Pinker says lang is instinct: "modular," a component under specific genetic control (N1)

--Middle ground: "Language is clearly more than a by-product of the evolution of other human traits—it is at the very center of human social activity, arguably the most basic human adaptation… Langugae is similarly not instinctive or modular—it involves a large number of physiological systems, and its processing and production involve much of the brain… it… shows considerable variation both among populations and historically" (N1)

--lang furthers culture, which exerts extrabiological force that favors WHOLE gorup over individual—works against natural selection to further species (N9)

*BUT on other hand: could have evolved socially as manipulation for resources (hiding food sources,

manipulating others into doing shit for you, competition) (N10)

-protolang may have originally been used to tell close kin location of hidden food (only

requires pointing, requesting, showing) (N10)

--creatures w/better ability to exploit symbolic use of vocab/body gesture (protolang) replace those who can’t (N12)

--Adaptive function of each species’ "language abilities"; corresponds to earlier chart under cognitive abilities

*austro: reference to hidden food, request to aid in getting food (N10)

*early Homo (habilis): extends to new requests: tools and butchery

*erectus: encoding of agent, instrument, location, aggrevation, coordination of labor, classification

of concrete entities, recruitment (N10)

*sapiens: encoding procedures for predicting resource distribution, classification of abstract concept/

entities, performance of ritual transformations (rites) of status, relations (marriage, etc.) (N10)

*Continuity: lang evolves slowly, intentionally (N1)

*Discontinuity: lang evolves quickly, cooncidentally (N1)

-protolang can go directly to lang (N6): creole lang demonstrates, no intermediate b/ween

pidgin adults learn and creole their kids learn (N6)

-protolang may have existed for long time; evidence: gap of 50,000 to 60 thou years b/ween

appearance of modern morphology and new technology/art (N8)

-BUT: on other hand, just cuz we don’t see cognitive abilities that led to lang doesn’t

mean they weren’t there, but unexpressed thus far

Time/Artifacts

--there IS a correlation b/ween lang and advanced behavior: both indicate complex minds (N8)

--Tookmaking not necessarily indicitive of lang—but maybe of protolang (N5)

*for ex, Neanderthal tool technology didn’t advance for 5,000 yrs; maybe their protolang was good enuf

for their "living in the moment" (N18)

*FIRE too: protolang uncouples stimulus and response and allows hominids to look at concepts like fire

that might otherwise be too emotional and learn how to use them (N5)

--BUT: toolmaking may not require lang, but sophisticated toolmaking including transporting materials, patterns of discard---maybe require lang? (N13)

*this would put lang development at 2 mya (N18)

--in any case, Mellars says language is difference b/ween tool-industries of Middle-to-Upper Paleolithic traditions

*based on significant difference in stone tools (N15) (USE NOTES TO DESCRIBE DIFFERENCE)

*based on art of upper Paleo: points to linguistic capacities needed to make/understand it

--Artifacts (symbolic ones—not just tools) say true lang emerged w/Homo sapiens (N6)

*hominids needed some way to communicate/explain ritual acts (N6)

-like symbolic acts: symbolic behavior like art indicitave of complex minds (N8)

-only nonvocal way of proving symbol-usage are "signs of genuine symbols" like

cave paintings, or iconic signs (N13)

-earliest of these occur in Vogelherd, Germany; but Australians got across ocean at

40,000 yrs, so symbolism/lang must have existed earlier (N13)

-100,000—65 thou ya, humans have jewlery, burials, delicate tools: need lang 4this (N19

-also more complex day-to-day life: late stone age, people hunted harder game than MSA; more

proficient hunting means better communication systems (N8); better hunting proven by bones,

advanced hunting tools