Did Language Invent Humans ?
Writing is a human invention. We have plenty of evidence of its invention and of its improvement down the ages. It would make no sense to assume that writing somehow 'just appeared'. A magical origin of writing would presuppose that our brains are hard wired to read, but we all know that reading and writing are skills that must be taught in a formal manner. Again, if we were 'hard wired' for written language then we would all use a single writing method, regardless of language. Writing is most definitely invented.
Spoken language is an entirely different matter. It evolved. That is to say, first humans evolved language, and then language itself evolved somewhat independently. Our primitive ancestors no doubt found that sticks and stones make useful tools, but they must have found language to be the most powerful and universal of all tools.
Whatever the field of human intellectual endeavour, language is the key to all understanding. Only in the fields of painting and sculpture, games and sports can we achieve much without language. In all other areas proficiency in language confers a massive advantage. Language is the tool that gave humans potential mastery of their environment.
Despite many attempts to invent better, more universal languages, these inventions never live up to expectations, never enjoy wide adoption. The task is too great - human language is the only truly universal tool - hence it must be capable of describing everything in the universe and every interaction of things in the universe, everything which is known, everything which might come to be known and everything which a human can imagine. No one person or group has the skill or knowledge to build such a powerful tool from scratch.
The evolutionary advantage of early language.
Imagine a primitive group of hunter-gatherers. A social structure requires a command structure, a 'pecking order'. Without language, there is only one way to command somebody to, let us say, pick fruit, and that is to demonstrate by physical action. On later occasions gestures may be enough. But if there are many fruits in the same area there is only one way to show which fruits are required - physical demonstration.
The great advantage of language for the group is a fuller division of labour. Whether instructed by gesture or by voice, if one person or group can be sent unsupervised to perform a task then the supervisor is free to be productive. Language has survival value because it increases the productivity of the group through planning, command and control. even older and feebler members of the group can now contribute, through instruction and education.
Spoken language may have evolved at first in parallel with gestural language. It is not widely appreciated just how much of human language is keyed, not to the visual but to the haptic senses. We commonly talk about having a grasp of or a feel for an idea. It appears that we solve some physical problems by imagining, or even performing, physical movements. We also learn much by simply watching others at work - human see, human do.
Perhaps early language evolved from a labeling of a gesture with a sound. If just one person started using a specific sound habitually with a specific gesture, others may well have copied this mannerism. It is a common observation that close groups adopt common behaviours. Once the sound is familiar to the group the accompanying gesture is redundant - the sound has become a word with an attached meaning.
Modern society without language is impossible to even imagine. Through language we have records of past achievements and can replicate them. The immense social and survival value of parent nurturing is extended back into the past as far as tribe memory and written records can take us. Long dead ancestors continue to contribute in a meaningful way to our children's welfare.
Psychologically speaking, we are possibly more a product of our society than of our genes. But our society is based on language, controlled through language. In a sense, society is language. We are born into a world dominated by language. We acquire language as children, and then we are educated through language. We use language to interact with society at all levels. It is only through language that we get to keep the specialist knowledge of many long dead ancestors.
Language is the glue that binds us together. We would not be what we are today without language. In a time long gone, in a place unknown, a group of not quite humans huddled together in a cave, fearful of the noise of rain, thunder and howling wind outside. By some as yet unknown process they had progressed beyond the grunts and gestures of a purely command-oriented language. For them, there was a comfort and a joy in the feel of language, in its flowing rhythms and its power. Perhaps they had learned to chant rhythms together. Language, a gift from evolution, became something more than a tool. One day it would blossom into poetry and song. But in a stone-age cave it would have been, for our ancestors, the greatest force for bonding a collection of genetically related beings into a true community. In a fire-lit shelter against a bewildering maelstrom of natural forces, language was surely the brightest candle against the raging darkness.
Comments
"A social structure requires a command structure, a 'pecking
order'. Without language, there is only one way to command somebody
to, let us say, pick fruit, and that is to demonstrate by physical
action."
Perhaps I should have amplified my argument, Gerhard, so here goes:
All social structures have a pecking order. Even if we view a collection of cells as a 'social' structure, there is often a pecking order - as where a core is protected against damage due to starvation, temperature etc. or where a central nervous sytem gets to command all of the other organs. A command structure can be implemented via chemical or electrochemical means in an individual, by chemical - pheromone - methods in colonies.
The human command structure is special - it is implemented by sounds. This gives an 'action at a distance' and a precision aspect. Going far beyond gestures, human language allows rapid and precise giving of commands to perform highly specific actions.
In refering to human social systems I mean to include all of its aspects - most specifically including the economic aspect of division of labour. In the absence of a sufficiently complex and precise language such complex and flexible social organisation is impossible. Insects may have specialist workers, but they are programmed, hard-wired, instinctive specialists. Humans are 're-programmable' through language to perform a world of different tasks.
As to your ideas about language as representing non-reality, I totally agree. Quite apart from myth and fiction, there is the unreality of past and future. Then, again, there is a hypothetical element in most social substitutes for overt commands - the strange use of 'if' in English is a good example: "If you would just step this way please."
And available to oneself! How much more able we are than other animals to set goals and to plan ahead just by conscious thought, mediated by self-directed language. One aspect of self awareness is the way we can 'talk to ourselves' whilst being, not just aware of the inner voice, but being in a position to monitor, error-correct and even censor that voice. It is a marvel that a tool which presumably evolved to communicate mental states between individuals is also of use as a tool to manipulate those states in a single brain.
order'. Without language, there is only one way to command somebody
to, let us say, pick fruit, and that is to demonstrate by physical
action."
I'm going to object to this conclusion because
there is ample evidence of significant social structure among animals
that precludes the need for language to achieve such an objective.
Perhaps I should have amplified my argument, Gerhard, so here goes:
All social structures have a pecking order. Even if we view a collection of cells as a 'social' structure, there is often a pecking order - as where a core is protected against damage due to starvation, temperature etc. or where a central nervous sytem gets to command all of the other organs. A command structure can be implemented via chemical or electrochemical means in an individual, by chemical - pheromone - methods in colonies.
The human command structure is special - it is implemented by sounds. This gives an 'action at a distance' and a precision aspect. Going far beyond gestures, human language allows rapid and precise giving of commands to perform highly specific actions.
In refering to human social systems I mean to include all of its aspects - most specifically including the economic aspect of division of labour. In the absence of a sufficiently complex and precise language such complex and flexible social organisation is impossible. Insects may have specialist workers, but they are programmed, hard-wired, instinctive specialists. Humans are 're-programmable' through language to perform a world of different tasks.
As to your ideas about language as representing non-reality, I totally agree. Quite apart from myth and fiction, there is the unreality of past and future. Then, again, there is a hypothetical element in most social substitutes for overt commands - the strange use of 'if' in English is a good example: "If you would just step this way please."
language is an absolute requirement to penetrate the contents of one's brain and make it available to others.
And available to oneself! How much more able we are than other animals to set goals and to plan ahead just by conscious thought, mediated by self-directed language. One aspect of self awareness is the way we can 'talk to ourselves' whilst being, not just aware of the inner voice, but being in a position to monitor, error-correct and even censor that voice. It is a marvel that a tool which presumably evolved to communicate mental states between individuals is also of use as a tool to manipulate those states in a single brain.
Patrick Lockerby | 05/18/09 | 16:24 PM
"The human command structure is special - it is implemented by sounds. This gives an 'action at a distance' and a precision aspect. Going far beyond gestures, human language allows rapid and precise giving of commands to perform highly specific actions."
One of my points is that most people associate language with hunting and group activities, but that wouldn't work. I've had occassion to try and catch horses and the errant cow and when a group of people are together engaged in herding activities, language is the least desirable element about it (since it gives a warning).
This is why I considered language to originate as one of those "after-event" things where the past and/or future could be analyzed for new outcomes. During an actual hunt verbal communication would be at a minimum or non-existent.
One of my points is that most people associate language with hunting and group activities, but that wouldn't work. I've had occassion to try and catch horses and the errant cow and when a group of people are together engaged in herding activities, language is the least desirable element about it (since it gives a warning).
This is why I considered language to originate as one of those "after-event" things where the past and/or future could be analyzed for new outcomes. During an actual hunt verbal communication would be at a minimum or non-existent.
Gerhard Adam | 05/18/09 | 16:40 PM
Patrick, in the second last paragraph we could substitute "cooperation" for "language" and the entire paragraph would still make perfect sense. This shows that the link between language and cooperation is so close that the two are almost synonymous, certainly inseparable. Keep going with this one mate, I think there's something special just around the corner.
Steve Davis | 05/16/09 | 19:26 PM
in the second last paragraph we could substitute "cooperation" for
"language" and the entire paragraph would still make perfect sense.
This shows that the link between language and cooperation is so close
that the two are almost synonymous, certainly inseparable.
Steve: I agree. Perhaps language and cooperation are two sides of one social coin. Whilst cooperation might evolve without even so much as a gestural language - in a 'herd instinct' fashion - I think that language as we know it could never have evolved without cooperation. Any animal can make a noise, but for that noise to count as communication there has to be cooperation between a sender and a receiver - it takes two to telex!
Patrick Lockerby | 05/18/09 | 17:06 PM
Hank Campbell | 05/18/09 | 19:02 PM
Heidi Henderson | 06/02/09 | 13:14 PM












I'm going to object to this conclusion because there is ample evidence of significant social structure among animals that precludes the need for language to achieve such an objective.
As you may know, my own supposition of language is that it evolved primarily as a vehicle to represent "non-reality". In other words, when considering the world around us, there are a variety of ways to communicate information and/or intentions, but when the need arises to discuss something that isn't "real" then language is indispensible.
When I say "something that isn't real", I mean simply the ability to express something that isn't immediately present. For example, in indicating where game might be located, it becomes impossible to even consider such an idea unless there were a means of conveying the abstract (i.e. there is a tree located in this part of the woods) without language. We see a similar sort of language among bees in presenting where nectar may be found.
In that respect I find that language would have the strongest evolutionary power in permitting humans the ability to discuss the abstract, or things that weren't immediately present in the environment and thereby gain a larger access into the world than would otherwise be possible.
I have always believed that what separates humans from animals is their ability to essentially live "in their brains", which means that it is entirely possible for humans to live and act completely based on the abstract thoughts they have manufactured whether they bear any resemblance to reality or not. As a consequence, language is an absolute requirement to penetrate the contents of one's brain and make it available to others.