TYP101 - The Evolution of Language

Speculation about the origins of human language is as old as history. This E-Lecture discusses two aspects of this topic: The biological pre-requisites for language and speech and possible hypotheses of how language could have emerged.

[@marcverhaegen7943]

"Vowels" were already present in early hominoid duets (gibbon-like songs, cf. Ch.Darwin). Consonants (brief interruptions of the oral cavity at the lips, teeth, palate etc.) became possible much later, when early-Pleistocene Homo followed the southern Eurasian coasts (Java, Flores etc.) and evolved adaptations for suction of seafoods, esp. shellfish: our closed parabolic tooth-row with incisiform canines, vaulted palate, globular tongue, hyoidal descent etc. The combination of these vowels + consonants with voluntary breathing (shallow-diving cf. E.Morgan) was the basis of human spoken language, google e.g. "Seafood, Diving, Song and Speech".

[@ayasnaj]

Let me disagree with you, I'm not denying your belief but It's not science, and this video explain the human evolution in scientific way. I really love it, perfectly explained! LinguisticsMarburg thanks a lot!

[@randomvariable4597]

Earth is flat by the way.

[@poaezr4288]

​@@randomvariable4597😂😂😂

[@poaezr4288]

I really tried learning the religion ways of how we came and so on in language what I don't get it if Adam spoke one language his children would speak it too and thus the cycle continue untill Noah ark and thus humanity go to belivers but even those ppl would speak the same that language and so we does But this isn't true there is tousands of language that aren't close to each other french different then arabic different Chinese difference then amazigh different then original American Latin language 😅 so explain in whatever religious way u want

[@sockbot41]

Have you ever heard of Idioglossia? It's when twins speak gibberish to each other and can fully comprehend what the other is saying. My theory is probably the first speakers were twins, and they would raise their young to speak their language. Gradually generation after generation would teach these dialects until finally you had a new language shared by the communitty.

[@paul_chandler3082]

Im a twin and we do this all the time

[@TheOne-yq6qk]

Me and my lil bro used to do that as kids.

[@poaezr4288]

That's a good one

[@sisyphus9787]

Wait, we're using theology-oriented historical markers in a lecture that acknowledges human evolution? I'd like to see someone rationalize these dissonant concepts.

[@andrewmize]

Do you guys have a way around the the fuzzy noise?

[@hogsaloft3089]

I recommend you take a look at the new book 'SPEECH! How Language Made Us Human' by Simon Prentis. He has a completely different, much simpler and persuasive take on the evolution of language from animal communication. It makes a lot of sense!

[@mohammedhanif6780]

I'm copying this from another video arguibg for a naturalistic account of language origins in the hope that someone can answer my questions: 1 If language evolved and at one time our ancestors did not speak 2 then there must have been a first instance of a language act (not necessarily a sound) involving a sign that conveyed a meaning 3 this conjunction of sound/gesture with a mental image/intent must have been made by at least 1 (proto) human 4 but HOW was this assignment of meaning to a sign FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME possible because it requires the existence of language ability itself (as far as I can see). It seems to me you need language to start a language and so an evolutionary account is circular. Where am I going wrong in my thinking? Secondly, how was the transferrence of meaning possible from the 'inventor' of language to a non language user when the listener did not have the 'decoder' of the language the speaker used? Eg. If the language 'inventor' pointed at the sky and said"grrr", how did the listener know what he meant amongst the myriad of possibilities WHEN SHE DID NOT POSSESS LANGUAGE? Or am I being simplistic and my questions naive? Perhaps language spontaneously originated amongst a kinship group and they ALL SIMULTANEOUSLY UNDERSTOOD EACH OTHER? But this seems strange to me and I would love to know how that would be possible. If a proto language similar to animal signals jumped to a true language, how was that jump possible? I see that gap as insurmountable. 

[@gonnzoGonnzales]

Mohammed Hanif well that gap is not insurmountable since we have made it. Language evolves in a very complex way and and creates new things out of necessity. When language first came up, the humans were all able to process the meaning of something newly coined. As was said in the video, it was a very long evolutionary process.From generation to generation, language became more elaborate and evolved in order to distinguish between more differentiated meanings etc. Just look at a baby that doesn't know a word at the beginning... How does a baby manage to acquire a language that is completely strange to him? There are a lot of factors that have to be taken into consideration. First you just listen and imitate. Important phenomena that occur in speech are 1) searching for regular patterns in the system and 2) analogy, i.e. levelling out irregular elements in a paradigm. Once you got the pattern it's easy to make up new constructions (new word and sentence constructions through the grammaticalisation of words) and take the game further. Language cannot exist without human beings, nor without a community of people. The circumstances a community lives in determine where and why communication is needed. Language is like a living organism and lives on as long as it's spoken. It is important to notice that any language sign (as are gestures) is but a random sign whose meaning is coonventionally accepted by the speaking community. The sign could be anything else and a 'table' could as well be called 'mesa' or "gugutiko". You should read "The Unfolding of Language" by Guy Deutscher, that's a very good book.

[@MoonChildMedia]

Ever hear of the "Stoned Ape Theory" .... you might like it.

[@RhamosVhailejh]

Where can I find more information on this Vocalization Hypothesis? Google and Wikipedia searches for this subject yield absolutely nothing. Is there a book or a documentary with an obscure name or something?

[@markcnut17]

Are these research findings still valid? What has changed since 2012?

[@joyfulsavage9905]

Cool breakdown thanks! Sound is a little fuzzy though

[@ZeinabAshiri]

Perfect 👍

[@aryanpatil2070]

thank you sir

[@martinluther2481]

How did language start with a character then a word, then Two words etc., You can't communicate with two words... It will take a miracle to come up with one working set of words for a language. Therefore language did not evolved there were several working sets all at once for different cultures. What we mistook for evaluation of language is really just diversification of an already working language.

[@humbertocamargo6275]

Philosophical anthropology: Man developed language in evolution when he perceives the object of desire in woman. (Essay Fragment)

[@us3rG]

Women are more impressed by our physique than our words, women don't care if you smart or not, a man just need to be fun and protective They don't know what a man is

[@skidelrymar]

u can believe whatever u want. thousands of years before it was the general belief that the earth was still; apparently earth itself didn't know about the consensus because even then it was moving. so whatever our belief it doesn't change the facts

[@AlgerianInMoscow]

What about the "stoned ape" hypotheses ?

[@MultiSciGeek]

thank you for this are there more hypothesis videos?

[@dZankell]

@ Jane Tat @S.A.K.Kh my dear fellow linguists I plead you both not to use this lecturing for fighting about believes. I, as a Baptist, am in total disagreement with the evolution of apes. I rather to say evolution of creationism, because I totally believe that language was created too. Darwin studied, as far as I remember because I am not biologist, animal species, not human being. Antropologist studied human being. Let's use this lecturing for obtaining relevant elements for our studies.

[@YusufKiddy]

I am yet to find a debate about the origin of language as there is about the origin of the universe and morality. Anyone?

[@randomvariable4597]

How do you mean?

[@benweb1105]

If you like to actually learn something about language evolution, or if you like to find the 'fossils ' of human languages, than start by learning Albanian language. Don't wast your life time confusing yourself and others. Read Petro Zheji books. "The Messianic role of Albanian language ".

[@marcverhaegen7943]

Comparative biology shows different biological preadaptations ("pre-requisites") to human speech & language: -Mio-Pliocene hominoid territorial songs, cf gibbon duets (Ch.Darwin), -vocal learning (parrots, songbirds, some marine mammals, but not chimps): localizing family members? -early-Pleistocene coastal diaspora of archaic Homo: seafood suction (hyoidal descent, oral closures), -idem shallow diving (esp. shellfish?) = voluntary breathing, -seafood=brainfood (DHA) cf brain enlargement incl. speech areas Broca & Wernicke. science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6461/50/tab-e-letters + refs therein

[@marcverhaegen7943]

Interesting video, but IMO we can be much more precise about the biological preadaptations to human speech & language, google e.g. "Speech originS 2017 Verhaegen PPT".

[@highlandergrog6041]

You would make a really good narrator.

[@josuebojorges4674]

References?

[@southwestvillas5469]

So Adam and Eve were not the first humans on earth or they were apes? Humans were created along with the language to communicate.

[@us3rG]

You can believe what you want but God gave us words In the beginning was the word, the word was with God and the word is God The all knowing doesn't want one language, tower of Babel, cause it turns tyrannical Language is usually associated with religion, you can teach a kid A is apple, A is ass or A is Aba and it will effect the kid This is same for all religions How you teach A matters

[@southwestvillas5469]

@@us3rG I agree. Maybe I didn't make my message sorry

[@us3rG]

@@southwestvillas5469 "humans were created along with language" I didn't miss that. I just wanted people to underground that.

[@us3rG]

In the beginning was the word, the word was with God and the word is God. Believe in what you want but the all knowing God gave us words

[@stevenedward9872]

not sure if Noam Chomsky would agree?

[@PaulBarthmaier0]

Chomsky doesn't really ask the right questions, nor find interesting answers. However, Chomsky is perfectly comfortable making claims that have little, if any, evidence,

[@guitar5436]

Paul Barthmaier well he claims that evolving people were showered with a cosmic shower of knowledge (shrooms) lead him to the stoned ape theory but never openly talking about it cause people would think he was crazy but now we have the internet

[@ferociousgumby]

There are other ways you can attain tongue flexibility

[@knotlock]

;)

[@mrjasonjneal]

language evolution...... why as a society are we adding the letter "S" to the word "ANYWAY"? .. .. Anyways I was just wondering.

[@PaulBarthmaier0]

So, he asks why we say 'anyways' anyway? So I says to the guy, 'that's hard to know, for sure.'

[@mrjasonjneal]

bahahaha!

[@borilboyanov5544]

Because of the ways of the any (a very ancient tribe)

[@TheOne-yq6qk]

Why would a species brain evolve randomly and develop the speech centers? something it has no idea what it does so realistically no need for, and with no vocabulary to use either. The language has to come fully developed too as it wouldn't be effective, the only way this theory sticks with me is if all happened overnight, which leads to more questions than answers.

[@emryzko2570]

Älskar Jörgen

[@JoyceElroy-z9w]

Gonzalez David Harris Paul Robinson Margaret

[@longcastle4863]

The vocal track I think has very little to do with the evolution or beginning of language. It's all brain. If the brain was ready to communicate, and the vocal track wasn't, then we would have used our hands to start the conversation.

[@Javiervallestero]

+rayof 315 Surely you mean the "vocal tract".

[@niahowells101]

+rayof 315 not necessarily, remember that sound can often travel than sight and being able to effectively communicate while say foraging (using your hands) would give us an enormous advantage

[@lostandfound1642]

hand conversation will be extremely limited at the best of times. And you would have to agree which gestures mean what. If you have ever studied gestures, you will realise that the same gesture can have widely different meanings or uses in different parts of the world. So I would disagree and say that the vocal tract is extremely important. Secondly, we know now that babies can only learn language if they hear their parents speak to them... hand gestures are meaningless. So adults would not be able to use their vocal tract unless they had started using it as babies. Gestures cannot "give way" to vocal expression because it is impossible for adults if they have not learnt it as children....

[@TheOne-yq6qk]

rayof 315 Well-done for using alot of word to say nothing. He is talking about actual spoken language here.

[@teepee431]

BC is still Before Christ at Marburg? In 2012? And for a discourse in Anthroplogy? You are way BCE, man..

[@Schizosepsis]

Imagine making a deal out of people using 'Before Christ' instead of 'Before Common Era'.

[@MoonChildMedia]

Stoned Ape Theory

[@deselby9448]

The Genie paradox and the critical period hypothesis indicate that the first primitive language could not have been acquired through evolution. If a child does not receive the necessary stimuli prior to the onset of puberty then the child will never acquire a language. Most children receive the necessary stimuli from their family and friends of the family. The child's parents received the necessary stimuli in the same way; and the parents of the parents received the necessary stimuli in the same way. But if you trace back far enough, through thousands of generations, you arrive at Person Zero. Person Zero is incapable of speech but will give birth to Person One, the first primitive speaker. Person Zero will be incapable of providing the necessary stimuli to Person One to enable Person One to acquire a language because Person Zero can't speak. This violates the current scientific evidence for language acquisition. So how did Person One learn to speak?

[@deselby9448]

That is a clever idea but according to the critical period hypothesis it is not possible for a child to learn a first language unless they receive the necessary stimuli prior to the onset of puberty. An imaginary friend could not provide the necessary stimuli for language acquisition. The language acquisition of Person One is a paradox. According to the current scientific data it should not have happened.

[@Soeales]

De Selby Are we assuming here that Person Zero had no contribution to language? Maybe there were transitional periods where individuals like Person Zero experimented with sounds, gestures, etc and so some sounds became common among groups as socially acceptable. As the sounds became common for means of simple communication, they were passed on to successive generations (Person One) which improved on the proto language to form much more complicated forms. Across millennia, this would have easily evolved into a full fledged langauge. Also, with regards to critical hypothesis theory, humans can still learn a language past puberty, although less likely than their younger counterparts. If raised in isolation, without any human stimuli, a human will be virtually incapable of learning a language, as demonstrated by countless social experiments and studies performed on wild children. But when debating the origin of langauge, we have to assume here the early humans were not isolated, but in groups. They had stimuli, and that stimuli could have involved primitive forms of language.

[@dZankell]

I would like to point here something that the Bible says, even if you believe or not: 1st Thessalonians 5: 21 (New American Standard Version 1995) But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;. It means, listen, study everything you listen to, read, speak about, observe, and watch paying atention to everything demonstration. Agree with that is correct, you agree, you believe. The Spanish version has more details about it. So please, let us not fight or argue unnecessarily

[@95eriksp]

Haha........

[@thegreatmoustachio]

I'm such a nerd. Why am I here?

[@ichibaopac2860]

thegreatmoustachio it is okay to pursuit your interests, in case you didn't know.

[@dZankell]

Pardon me, did I ask you to coment? NO. I thought you were much more intelligent and remain silent just like some wise men do....

[@milkmanmoses]

shut up jean