3 Lesson 3: Where Did Human Language Come From?

There is a significant amount of debate among linguists about the timeframe and origins of language. Some researchers suggest that language, or its precursor ‘Proto-language’, might have evolved this early. Many believe that language evolved slowly over time sometime between 3 million year ago and 100,000 years ago. Others argue that language developed in one individual fully formed around 20,000 years ago. For many years, many linguists argued that human language is entirely unique and likely developed rapidly in only Homo Sapiens Sapiens (humans). Some even argued that language could only have been bestowed upon humans by a deity. They weren’t really basing these ideas on scientific evidence or observation, though.

In the past 100 or so years, a new theory has emerged about how language developed in humans. It might just have evolved from non-human animal communication systems. In the past 30 years, new genetic research and understanding of primates and other animals gives us new evidence to consider. As we learn more about the communication of non-human animals, we find evidence that suggests our language is not quite as different from theirs as you might think. For example, Chimps have dialects and some birds do too. Dolphins have names for each other and use clicks to coordinate movements.

Let’s explore this idea more.

We’ll start by looking at the one of the main theories that argued that human language was very different, unique, from other animals (often as a means to try to argue against the concept of evolution or to uphold beliefs that humans were special and had rightful dominion over animals). Then, we’ll examine some evidence from:

• animal communication systems
• the human brain and genetics, and
• the evolution of early humans

to explore the question: Where does language come from?

The field of linguistics has traditionally held that human language is distinct from animal communication systems because human language is believed to have unique characteristics that animal communication does not.  In 1960, Charles Hockett identified what he called the “design features of language”—features (or characteristics) that he argued were only found in human language. He called them “design” features because he argued that they could only have been designed, not evolved. He first identified 16, later reduced to 13.

Of these, only 7 were still recently thought to be unique to human language. Drawn from Yule (2006), these 7 features are:

• Arbitrariness: when there is no logical connection between the form of an utterance or sign and its meaning

Example: The sounds in the word ‘stop’ don’t have any natural relationship to the meaning ‘stop’. If the sounds did, then all human languages would use s-t-o-p to mean ‘stop’. Spanish uses ‘alto’ or ‘para’.

There is a counter, example to arbitrariness, though: onomatopoeia.

Some words do sound somewhat like the sounds they are meant to represent, like ‘cockadoodledoo’. However, there are still differences between languages. In Spanish, this is closer to ‘kikiriki’. Again, somewhat arbitrary.

• Prevarication:  the ability to lie 

Example: I could tell you that we have no quizzes in this class when in fact, we do.

• Displacement: the ability to communicate about something not in the current time or space (yesterday, tomorrow, in another room)

Example: I can tell you that we have a quiz coming up next week. That is talking about the future.

• Cultural Transmission: that language is acquired through culture across generations (taught and learned)

Example: Your language and dialect is acquired in your community. If you grew up in Japan, you would speak Japanese. You are not born knowing any particular language.

• Productivity: the ability to create new words and sentences

Example: I can say “Toss me that neon striped baby grand piano before you climb up to the basement.” That is probably a very new sentence. People, especially younger people who use slang, can make up new words. I heard one yesterday: “He’s got no rizz,” as in no game.

Discreteness: language is made up of small units of meaning that are combined to form larger meaningful units (words, phrases, sentences, for example)

Example: The parts of the word ‘multi-syllabi-ic’ are multi-, meaning multiple, syllab, meaning syllable, and -ic, meaning ‘of or about’.

• Reflexivness: a language can be used to talk about the talking/communication

Example: In this whole lesson I am talking (well writing really) about talking/communication. Now, I am talking to you about talking to you about talking. This is getting meta.

In many definitions of language, you will also find language described as voluntary, rather than instinctual. This means that humans can choose to speak rather than merely reacting to their environments.

Now that we’ve looked at Hockett’s features of language (and voluntary use), let’s explore how human language and animal communications are different (or not so different).

More recently, though, as scientists are learning more about non-human animal communication systems, we are finding some interesting things!

For example, scientists used to think that all animal communications were instinctual, meaning that they were unintentional responses triggered by environmental or events. While researchers in the 1960s already knew that vervet monkeys had specific vocalizations (calls) for different predators (in the sky, on the land, in the tree with us! Watch out!), they thought they were just instinctual. They thought that if the animal saw the threat or environmental trigger they had no choice but to make the call. They couldn’t control it.

But, in 1980, Seyfarth, Cheney, and Marler, tested out whether animal calls were instinctual or intentional. They put a fake snake in the path of a chimpanzee. If the chimpanzee thought that the other chimpanzees had already seen the snake, it wouldn’t make the alarm call! It had a choice and could choose when or whether to make the call. So…not so instinctual after all!

Most people distinguish between animal and non-animal communication, viewing humans and language as special. What do you think? Based on the vervet monkey calls, we know that animal communication can have ‘words’ with specific meanings. But, can these bits of meaning be combined? Can non-human animal communication systems show discreteness, combining bits of meaning to make larger meaning, or any of the other of Hockett’s features of language?

Do only human languages have these characteristics, though? Let’s test that hypothesis!

Watch the video How Close Are We To Talking With Animals? (8:15)

What did you notice about non-human animal communication?

Time to Think! 

Take a minute or two to think about this question. Write your answer in your notes. 

What is the difference between language and communication?

This video gave us some different features of language. They defined language as: Distinct and organized patterns of communication with an potentially infinite number of combinations (Discreteness) that is learned (Cultural Transmission) and voluntarily used rather than instinctual.

That gives us a new feature: voluntarily used

Are there any of Hockett’s features of language that are not found in animal communication? 

What about arbitrariness and reflexivity?

If Chimps can make up new words, then those words must not be instinctual only. There can be new signs/gestures for new concepts. And, these signs/gestures can be new. And, Chimps in different regions have different dialects, using different vocal calls for the same meaning and different ways of flirting with leaves in different regions (Daktamaik 2022). These ways of communicating are learned and are not limited to a natural set. This means the form is not naturally connected to the meaning—they are arbitrary.

Other species also have dialects, different vocalizations in different groups and geographic regions. Humpback whale songs in Australia differs from those near Hawaii. Sparrows’ songs also vary by region and from year to year. While making these sounds may be innate, the form of the sounds varies, and therefore is somewhat arbitrary.

That just leaves reflexivity. Can animals communicate with each other about communication? Well…we just don’t know yet. We haven’t decoded enough of their communication to be able to definitively answer that question.

Mirror Neurons, Broca’s Area, Gestures, and Language

Corballis (2009) argues that the mirror neuron system could be where language originated. Mirror neurons are special nerve cells that are activated when humans imitate action. These neurons, however, do not activate the same way in all apes—instead, these neurons activate when apes interpret the actions of another ape. These neurons, Corballis suggests, are important, therefore, for apes to interpret gestures. In humans, impairment of these neurons also results in cognitive and language impairments. This suggests there may be some connection between mirror neurons in apes gestures and in human language.

Where in the Brain does language live?

Study this diagram. Notice the area where Broca’s area is? Broca’s area is a complex region where language production, whether spoken or signed, is regulated.

This is where the mirror neurons live. Mirror neurons were actually found here first in primates before being identified in humans.

See the area known as Wernicke’s? That is the same area in the non-human primate brain where gestures (and signs) are interpreted. And where human speech interpretation occurs. This is where the mirror neurons in primates are activated when they hear other primate calls or actions.

Corballis argues that our early hominin ancestors (both of humans and of other modern apes) may have used gestures to communicate, much like modern apes to. And, that over time, the areas of the brain that control gestural communication developed in humans to control verbal communication.

Genes and Language!

Very recent research has further supported Corballis’s and others’s (Fisher & Marcus 2006) argument about the origin of language. This research results from a human family that has a rare genetic defect in the FOXP2 Gene that impacts their ability to vocalize. Bird, mice, and other animals also have the FOXP2 gene—used in singing. Primate, though have slightly different variants of the FOXP2 gene and this turns out to be important.

Watch this videoOpens in new window to learn more about the connection of this gene to vocalization!

Further, the FOXP2 gene might be related to mirror neuron system as magnetic resonance imaging shows that a deficit in the FOXP2 gene is linked to underactivity in Broca’s area (Corballis 2004)! More research is needed.

But, why don’t chimps and gorillas ‘talk’ then? 

We used to think it was because apes and monkeys had vocal tracts not conducive to speech. But, as you can see from the diagram, the vocal tracts of chimps and humans are not that dissimilar. Mostly, they differ in shape.

Chimps can vocalize but only within a narrow range.  They also have a membrane covering their vocal folds that allows them to vocalize much louder than a human, but not to control the vibration of the vocal folds (vocal chords) at a regular pace necessary for clear sustained vocalization (they can’t sing!). Humans don’t have that membrane. We don’t know exactly why yet.

Fitch and Ghazanfar, neuroscientists, tested the vocal range and abilities of macaques and found that, while they would sound odd, they could produce human speech (Price 2016). And, so likely could other primates, including gorillas and chimps. The main reason that non-human apes can’t speak like humans, they argue, is because their brains can’t control the vocal apparatus the same way we can because their FOXP2 genes are different from ours. 

Why did humans start to vocalize more? It might have to do with Bipedalism, Hairlessness, and Mothering

While there is still some debate over which causes which or whether they just both occurred in response to the same external environmental pressures, humans evolved bipedalism and hairlessness at about the same time, roughly 5-6 million years ago. One theory suggests that hairlessness emerged along with increased sweating ability to help regulate body temperature when we moved out of trees and into grasslands, where we also needed to stand upright. Being upright also allowed us to run and walk for longer distances without tiring. Those upright leg muscles, though, produced more heat than before, meaning we needed to regulate our temperatures.

Fitch (2004) and Faulk (2010) argue that hairlessness and mother-infant communication might have led to vocal communication. As we became hairless, babies couldn’t cling to mom’s hair. Fitch argues the need for mothers to keep kin close to care for babies and share labors due to their hands being full led to the need to speak. Faulk argues that mom sometimes needed to use her arms to gather food and had to put baby down. To keep track of and reassure baby (keep it quiet to avoid attracting predators), mom needed to vocalize. This vocalization (perhaps through an intermediate stage of singing!), along with changes in the FOXP2 gene, may have led to gestures becoming language. These arguments have been critiqued because other primates and mammals have kin groups but not vocal language at the level humans do. Other primates have hair, though!

Other theories argue that maybe the need to make tools led to speech (Stout & Chaminade 2012). Complex tool making began in the Lower Paleolithic period, about 1.75 million years ago. Mirror and motor neurons are both used in teaching. MRI scans have shown increased blood flow in the areas of the brain related to language and cognition when making tools. Perhaps teaching to make and use tools led to complex thinking, vocalizations, and speech.

The most famous living linguists, Noam Chomsky believes that language emerged less than 100,000 years ago through a genetic mutation in the brain of one individual who had a significant cognitive advantage and that language emerged in perfect form in this one individual and was passed down to all offspring. Writing with a team in 2014, he argues that the biological structures necessary for speech were present long before language evolved (Bolhuis et al. 2014) but that the cognitive ability for language, which must be present before external speech can emerge, only developed much more recently. They argue that, as we can’t find any physical evidence (fossils) of speech, we, instead, must look for evidence of symbol use. Evidence of the use of symbols, such as pigments to paint or decorate bodies (for funerals) or decorative items, they argue, is much more recent.