The evolution of spoken language.

[too-open-minded]

How did it start? I would assume from a language of gestures then recognized sound and tone evoked into different increments of emitted noise?

 

How many words are there in each language? How many words, hard question to ask but does anybody have a good estimate?

 

How many different utterances of noise are their in each language? How complex, or difference in utterance of noise patterns are there?

 

How many more words and utterances are there now compared to from where spoken language first arrised?

 

What were the first words? I'm guessing hunting and labeling environment?

 

Where did it stem from there?

 

 

 

I'm gatheric information to see just how much language has evolved

Edited November 23, 2013 by too-open-minded

[Strange]

I think most of the answers are going to be "unknown", unfortunately.

 

How did it start? I would assume from a language of gestures then recognized sound and tone evoked into different increments of emitted noise?

 

Probably something along those lines. Based on whatever communication system/sounds our pre-human ancestors had. There are many hypotheses. I'm not sure if any of them can really be tested. One, which is quite similar to your suggestion, is that it grew out of directing other peoples attention to things; by using noises and then words, and then grammar, you can indicate a great many more things than you can just by pointing.

 

 

How many words are there in each language? How many words, hard question to ask but does anybody have a good estimate?

 

It is hard to answer, partly because it is hard to define what a word is. For example, is "water" (the liquid) different from "to water" (the plants)? And is "waters" a different word from "water"? And so on. And then there are words only used is specialised professions: are they part of "the language" or a different language only spoken by those professions. And then, which English? Australian, American, Indian? British? Identifying words is relatively easy in English because they don't change very much (apart from adding an s for plurals, etc) and we separate them with spaces when we write. Other languages create words by tacking an endless number of suffixes on to a root. And so on.

 

This article suggests English could have about three-quarters of a million: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/how-many-words-are-there-in-the-english-language. Most people know between 20 and 40 thousand, I think.

 

Other languages may have more or less. I guess non-technological societies might have fewer.

 

 

How many different utterances of noise are their in each language? How complex, or difference in utterance of noise patterns are there?

 

Interesting question. Again it is difficult to answer because it is hard to define what makes up a "sound" in each language. And then there are examples where different sounds are used for the same "meaning" (the same phoneme) depending on the context. And then how do you compare sounds between languages. The "t" sound in British English is a bit different from the "t" in Italian (depending on context) and very different from the retroflex "t" in Indian, for example.

 

English (well my dialect) has about 13 vowels and a similar number of consonants. Hawaiian has (arguably) 5 vowels and 8 consonants.

 

Total number of different sounds? I have no idea! (Lots)

 

 

What were the first words? I'm guessing hunting and labeling environment?

 

You might want to look up Proto-IndoEuropean, the reconstructed ancestor of most European languages. The vocabulary has been used to deduce something about the way of life of the early speakers. I don't really know how reliable that is. Some of the sounds in that early language have disappeared in all modern languages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_language

 

Some people have tried to take things even further back, combining mutiple language families to come up with something called Proto-Nostratic. I don't think this is generally accepted by linguists. And even more speculative work like Proto-World (attempting to learn something about the "first" language) is definitely not generally accepted.

 

 

I'm gatheric information to see just how much language has evolved

 

You only need to look at the language used in, say, Beowulf, Chaucer, Shakespeare and modern English to get an idea...

[too-open-minded]

Beowulf, Chaucer, and Shakespeare can give a good idea, not much in the context of why I'm asking these questions though. I want to contrast from the beginning of spoken language to now, reflecting how much we communicate, the complexity of it, and the increases of that through the years. I'm not looking for anything 100% accurate, just a crude model.

[cladking]

There are no real answers to your questions but my theory is that humans had a natural animal language that went back some quarter million years. It was composed of sounds and words that were natural to humans and probably had a vocabulary of between 200 and 2000 "words". Babies may have always been born capable of using this language but are not sufficiently proficient to even know it. Sometime around 40,000 years ago a mutation occured which allowed an individual greatly enhanced ability to use and understand language. He was only parly successful at teaching this to others since they lacked the mutation. But it bred true and the new language speakers had a huge evolutionary advantage on their animal cousins because they could pass down knowledge and learning from one generation to the next. This language fascilitated thought and the results became the massive wealth of knowledge in their "unconscious minds".

 

I believe this language was very much distinct from modern language because it was just an "animal language on steroids". It expressed meaning through context rather than the words taking their meaning from context as modern languages do. Context was expressed though the usage of scientific, colloquial, and vulgar term. All knowledge was incorporated into the language as new branches of knowledge were born. Hence in a very real way this language was metaphysics. It was the understanding of science. Apparently this language (there were numerous dialects) had 20,000 to 30,000 words. It became overly complex and modern language was born and the old language forgotten.

 

Modern language has some 100,000 words used "frequently" and another 150,000 extremely esoteric and precise words.

 

An older thread on the subject;

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78437-ancient-beliefs-and-evolution/

 

It was pyramid building that gave rise to my theory;

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78598-pyramids-through-the-eyes-of-the-builders/

[Dekan]

Perhaps spoken language is evolving towards a best result, and that is the English language, because it does seem to be superior.

 

It has the most words, far more than French for instance. Also French is afflicted by nasal vowels, which make a gargling noise in your throat and chest. And the resulting sounds are so obscure, that French people have to spell their names out by letters, when they sign into a hotel.

 

This seems a big handicap - a language which is ok when written, because then you can see the letters, but when spoken, it's just a honking noise.

 

I wonder how French sailors in the 18th Century managed to understand the shouted orders of their officers. All those nasals must have got whipped away in the wind. Could that account for British naval supremacy during those years, and our victory at Trafalgar?

[Strange]

So, after 3 posts we have descended to unsupported personal "theory" and casual racism. Great.

Edited November 29, 2013 by Strange

[cladking]

So, after 3 posts we have descended to unsupported personal "theory" and casual racism. Great.

 

At least my "theory" addresses a few of the specific questions asked that are otherwise virtually unanswerable by orthodox theories. By counting the number of words in ancient text and extrapolation it's hardly difficult to make meaningful estimates of the number of words. I did point out that my work does not agree with mainstream belief. Of course, I don't see any "racism" either. I'm not necessarily supporting any idea about naval battles but each modern language has numerous differences, and hence, advantages and disadvantages to every other one.

 

 

 

 

[Strange]

At least my "theory" addresses a few of the specific questions asked that are otherwise virtually unanswerable by orthodox theories.

 

I don't see how a made-up story contradicted by historical linguistics (among many other lines of evidence) can possibly answer questions better than factual information - even if that is incomplete.

 

 

Of course, I don't see any "racism" either.

 

That was in reference to Dekan's comments.

[too-open-minded]

0_- well I wrote this thread because I want to see how much language has evolved with being able to have an estimate of the biggest inclines in complexity of language in different intervals of time.

 

Really the big picture of me asking these questions is I want to show just how fast us humans are evolving and not evolution of our physical adaptations but our mental adaptations to comprehending and understand our physical world. I'm hoping to portray in a positive light how fast our mental capabilities are evolving.

[arc]

I have discussed this subject before in biology. I think the first human language, more than just those single proto words sounded when gesturing while hunting for example, but the first constructs of language began when our very early ancestors became aware of time, the first understanding of the concept of yesterday, today and tomorrow.

I have debated whether a past/present/future awareness would have been in place prior or would it have developed in tandem with language as simply a tool they constructed to communicate more clearly. It would seem to be a natural development in language, to refer to for example, what happened on a hunt, and then extend those "stories" out over time. And with these early humans, that knowledge of past/present/future makes way for experiences of regret and hope that could develop into primitive religion and then into philosophy.

This to me is possibly the driver of our brain evolution. Those who could communicate and imagine the images in stories and use that information could understand the world around them better and improve their chances to survive. This could be the engine that would progress brain development quickly.

I could see it being almost inevitable that once the concept of the past is understandable, a hunter injured for example, would contemplate that traumatic moment and feel the regret of the mistake. He would possibly reexamine the events leading up to the accident searching for a answer to his regret. These experiences would lead to either fear or hope for tomorrow depending on the severity of his wounds and his knowledge of the fate of others with similar injuries.

If the injured had been considered one of importance this could be quite traumatic for all those involved. This would likely create fertile grounds for superstition and the need to anticipate the possible dangers lying in wait for them tomorrow. This is an inevitable byproduct of increasing brain size. The increase of imagination that visualizes the stories with increasing complexity would also drive the superstition that would increasingly be included in those stories.

Those that could process this flow of information and apply it to survival would likely pass their more advantageous brain and possibly even their cultural "education system" of language and stories on to their offspring. This model of evolution is one that has an internal mechanism of an information feedback creating an accelerated development of brain size in human ancestors. I think language, the concept of past/present/future and the stories that advanced human understanding, developed together through mutual reinforcement, accelerating our ancestors development.

[ewmon]

How did it start?

How many words are there in each language?

How many different utterances of noise are their in each language?

How many more words and utterances are there now compared to from where spoken language first arrised?

What were the first words?

Where did it stem from there?

 

You can find much information online about historical linguistics. Of course, because oral language began in the prehistory of human existence, there's more guesswork the further back you look. That is, "prehistory" means before recorded data.

 

It looks like you want to study the tree of Indo-European languages, which has its roots in Proto-Indo-European language (aka PIE).

 

Distinctive sounds are called phonemes, and you can find most of the phonemes used in the world's language in the International Phonetic Alphabet (aka IPA).

 

First words might equate to words described as "ultraconserved words". You might enjoy this Ted Talk on how language transformed humanity.

[too-open-minded]

Wow, thankyou ewmon. That's definitely a good bit of information as to what I was asking for that you organized for me. Thankyou, you're awesome!

 

arc, sounds pretty legit to me.

[arc]

arc, sounds pretty legit to me.

 

Well, thank you for starting such an interesting thread. This is a subject that has always caught my interest, I look forward to reading ewmon's links, this is great fun.

[ewmon]

Then there's something called Proto-Human Language, which is supposed to be the ultimate ancestor of all languages.

[tar]

Cladking,

 

What was the mutation that occurred 40 thousand years ago, to which you allude?

 

My thinking is that there is some ability, in terms of symbolization, or memory, or sound manipulation, or focus, or something, that separates us from other apes in regards to the ability to share a "thought". Or to have a "thought" perhaps.

 

Obviously, now, we have the ability to remember and manipulate the world, internally, without expending the energy to actually move and rearrange anything. We can practice arrangements until we find one that seems workable, given what we have already sensed and remembered as working, and then, after formulating this plan, attempt to execute it, solving the interim "problems" as they arise, but remembering the plan or goal and making the additional "efforts" required to reach such a goal.

 

But what was the mutation? What biological mechanisms came together, were repurposed, to result in the ability to have a thought and manipulate the world to match it? What rudiments are there, from which higher level, human "thoughts" are constructed?

 

Too-open-minded question is about the evolution of language. But I am thinking that the number of sounds, or the number of words is not so important as understanding the meaning behind the words, the focus on one aspect of reality, and the ability to transfer that focus into or from another human mind.

 

All the permutations possible from that ability are evident, but what a French person does in this regard is not substantially different from what a Chinese person does. Its the thing we do, when we talk and write and listen and read, that is the something different from what apes do.

 

What facility did we pick up 40 thousand years ago, inorder for us to have this thing?

 

Regards, TAR2

Might it be something along the lines of Arc's idea that gave us the ability to symbolize and work with time, internally?

[cladking]

 

What was the mutation that occurred 40 thousand years ago, to which you allude?

 

My thinking is that there is some ability, in terms of symbolization, or memory, or sound manipulation, or focus, or something, that separates us from other apes in regards to the ability to share a "thought". Or to have a "thought" perhaps.

 

 

I believe we completely misapprehend the nature of intelligence and language. We miss some of the most important aspects of science. We misunderstand other animals and ancient people. The nature of humanity mostly eludes us.

 

There's barely such a thing as intelligence at all and what does exist is much more evenly spread among people and god's creatures than most imagine. It's not intelligence that appears to make people so unique but rather it is language. But it is not only that complex language makes us unique but that the nature of the language we now use is unique among animals where humans once spoke a human animal language. It is language which which allows us to build on the work of previous generations and generates tremendous knowledge which fills our minds and is retrievable at whim.

 

We seek to understand nature but usually can't see the incredible complexity of what we study because of the terms in which we think. We can watch a pan of boiling spaghetti and would never try to predict the various interweavings and where the next wisp of vapor will arise. We don't consider the various molecules in the water and steam or their collisions nor try to consider the differences from one piece of spaghetti to the next or the possible differences in one molecule to the next. We can safely predict it will be done in ten minutes but wouldn't consider predicting which noodle will be on top or which cell of our body an inhaled water molecule will occupy. Even in nature's simplest events there is complexity beyond description and far beyond our understanding. All of nature's laws might be simple but the interactions are impossibly and infinitely complex.

 

The human "animal" which preceded human beings must have been very similar just as the animal that laid the first chicken (egg) must have been very similar to it. But if the difference between humans and the animal that gave rise to us is nothing but language as is apparent in the very definition of human as seen in this light then the likely change was simply the ability to communicate using complex language. All animals have some language so it should follow that the human ancestor had a language as well. Whatever gave rise to complex language affected a spoecies that already had basic communication skills. It is my contention thart this was a simple mutation in the human speech center and the first complex language was an elaboration on our natural animal language. Learning immediately began being passed down and human progress was begun. Obviously we were already a little more clever than most other animals since we took tool making and fire to new levels but it was language that began the race.

 

This language didn't make us more intelligent but merely gave the species the ability to build on the work of individuals. This already existed in other species which manipulated the enviroment and used tools but with complex language and progress we took it to a new level. I bel;ieve these animal languages are all metaphysical in nature. They mimic observation and grammar mimics nature. Most learning was derived from observation and logic and this fit naturally into the way animals think. Humans were no different for tens of thousands of years. They built up an extensive science with language as its metaphysics but this language became increasingly complex especially with the invention of writing and within a 1000 years it collapsed and gave rise to modern language which has almost no restritions in phraseology. The ancient science was lost but its technology survived passed down father to son and its applied science was preserved as religion. Many aspects survive but the science itself was lost and must be redeveloped.

 

Modern humans are likely less intelligent than our ancestors but this is difficult to determine and based largely on logic and anecdotal evidence. Ancient phraseology could be incredibly complex implying the average man could follow.

 

Complexity of a language is not determined solely by the number of words but by the "grammar" as well. Look at computer languages and how very few words can generate extremely complex programming. The ancient language had few words but they could express almost any thought if you could figure out how to phrase it.

 

Modern science, metaphysics, and language are far removed from what once was taken for granted but none of the truly important things ever really change. It will always take a set lenght of time to cook noodles and science will ultimately depend on observation and our ability to apply it to nature and our machines.

[tar]

Cladking,

 

So is there a particular mutation you have in mind, that occurred 40 thousand years ago? Some new connection in the brain? Some mirror neurons in a different place, or used for a different purpose? The hijacking of some already useful function and mechanism to serve a slightly different purpose?

 

My guess, or theory, is that somewhere along the line, we started using our predictive motor simulator, that allows the brain to practice motor neural sequences and combinations, before actually firing them to make a coordinated movement, for predicting and practicing potential actions we can cause to occur outside our neural system.

 

As the TED talk suggested, a baby is somewhat taken by the fact that it can make a noise that brings objects it wants to touch to it, and even food directly into its mouth. Not too much of a stretch to consider experimenting with these different sounds, and learning which ones in which order and combination, get the world to respond in a pleasing fashion, and then remembering these particular combinations, learning these particular combinations, and attempting to sound them again, when the same need arises the next time. It is difficult for a parent to ignore a crying baby. They must need or want something. The baby must be unhappy with some aspect of their bodily situation, some gas, or hunger or cold or urge for human touch or frightened or surprised or has some situation it can not, on its own, within the reach of its motor neurons, resolve.

 

Antelopes emerge from the womb, and in a very short time, stand in a wobbly fashion, and soon learn the motor neuron sequences required to move about the world, and go to food and water, and run from preditors...human babies have to call the world to them and train the local world to respond to their needs for a long time before they can pull themselves around and crawl to the pots and pans to hit with a spoon and make a sound.

 

So what was the mutation? Something that retarded our motor neurons from cooridinating our muscles, in favor of coordinating with our parents muscles? Some brain development of our ability to converse with an unseen other, to hold memories of other people's emotions and thoughts, in our own brain?

 

What was the mutation you have in mind, that occurred 40 thousand years ago?

 

Regards, TAR

How did Helen Keller's parents punish her?

 

By rearranging the furniture.

How many times is a botched attempt at personally manipulating the world to your ends, followed by the consideration of " Well, you could have asked!"

And why is the pen mightier than the sword?

[cladking]

Your idea is interesting. I have some reservations but perhaps it can even tie in with my idea. Again though I believe the evidence well supports the concept that the primary difference between humans and other animals is that humans have complex language. The lack of such complexity in animal languages suggests more that they don't have the capacity to generate or understand it. If by some means an individual fish suddely became capable of speech it probably would confer no survival advantage and it would be bred out of the population. But in humans when an individual was born with a super sized speech center it gave him the ability to more easily communicate with others which was an everyday practical advantage. Some of his children were born with this same ability and language was invented. By the time his grandchildren were born there was already a huge evolutionary advantage since learning was already accumulating. Soon the speakers controled and owned the entire gene pool.

The concept that humans are "intelligent" is merely a confusion caused by modern language which arose only ~4000 years ago.

[tar]

Cladking,

 

Well I suppose a way to check my idea is to see if there is any correlation between the areas of the brain that light up when one is formulating a plan, and the areas of the brain that light up when the predictive motor simulator is getting ready to fire a set of coordinated muscle movements.

 

Interestingly enough there might also be a tie in with arc's idea of the concept of past/present/future, in that the predictive motor simulator is using learned combinations and timing from the past to generate a present firing of neurons, that will cause a future movement, once all the signals reach the appropriate muscles.

 

Regards, TAR2

To say nothing of the fact that Kant felt we had two apriori intuitions. That of time. And that of space.

Too-open-minded,

 

You might look at the Wiki article on Kant's Categories. They have much to do with thought and language as they categorize, in general, everything that can be said about a thing.

Plus, the most intelligent man I ever knew, a Prussian Philosophy professor (now deceased) once taught us that we can make no more than 7 qualitative distinctions at a time, and quantitative distinctions need to be considered over time, or counted sequentially.

[arc]

Sometime around 40,000 years ago a mutation occured which allowed an individual greatly enhanced ability to use and understand language.

 

 

I don't believe it required a specific mutation to kick-start human speech. We are all probably descended from the one single tribal group that developed speech, the one and only group out of the many others that did not do so. I believe it simply took a situation where a few members of this group developed (invented) a very basic proto language of a few consonants that probably represented what they hunted or what hunted them. A vocabulary like "ka" and "ba" and similarly simple proto words.

 

Over time this language concept would unify the entire group and create an information revolution within that group. By possessing the concept of a unifying verbal language it would allow them, in coming generations, to gain advantage over the other none verbal groups. And over the following uncounted generations, it would slowly overlay their world with increasingly more complex constructs and concepts of verbal communication that in turn would drive brain development. Beginning with words to describe what they ate or what ate them, it grew to include places they hunted and gathered and the names of the many animals and plants in their quickly expanding verbal world.

 

With this engine of change in place, time and natural variation in the subtle differences between generations would be enough to select the intellectually and anatomically predispositioned for success in this verbal communication defined paradigm of survival and reproduction. It would seem more likely that the capacity for verbal communication would improve through time because of the advantages it gave to those that inherited the same benefits from their parents. More so than a random vocal mutation that would seem rather useless unless it was coupled to an intellect capable of utilizing it. I believe it was the invention of the first proto words that started the engine that in turn developed the intellect that drove this self feeding cycle of increasing intellect, vocabulary and evolutionary success.

 

This idea is analogous to the other much later historic information revolutions such as writing, the printing press, computers and the internet.

Edited December 5, 2013 by arc

[cladking]

 

 

It would seem more likely that the capacity for verbal communication would improve through time because of the advantages it gave to those that inherited the same benefits from their parents.

 

Individuals can exceed their programming through effort but it's very unlikely that a species can.

 

If some individuals were compounding learning from one generation to the next giving rise to advancements like agriculture then it would benefit all individuals of that species and not necessarily confer a survival advantage. Individuals who were most successful might have larger families or more off-spring but this wouldn't make others smarter or more able to communicate.

[arc]

The introduction of a proto spoken language into a hominid group provided a mechanism that promoted an abstract concept of communication, the identification of a subject by a specific spoken sound. Those with the natural abilities to understand and learn this concept benefited by it, while those that could not struggled to keep up within the learning curve that the entire group experienced. Imagine the differences that would be experienced between the oldest and youngest members, the little ones adapting more easily while many of the older members may have been incapable of even learning a simple one syllable sound representing a common object.

 

The advantages possessed by those who were capable would probably be passed on to at least some of their offspring. They may even have experience a higher rate of birth due to the advantages of verbal collaboration between them and the others of similar or greater aptitude. The groups cohesion could have been challenged by the verbal disparity within its members, if the group diverged it would undoubtedly be between those who could and those who could not understand the concept of verbal communication.

 

The invention of a spoken language may be the single greatest evolutionary advancement by humankind that was instigated by a conscious creative idea of an individual hominid, simply associating a given verbal sound to a specific subject, a name for something that possibly garnered a great amount of attention by this individual. Something he/she may have feared or possibly had hunted. What would have been named first? Water, a predator, lightning or maybe it was fire. But once this name was given and used the die was cast to a process that drove the physiologic and cognitive development that progressed early hominids into a successively smarter and successful animal of adaptability, a credit no doubt to their growing mastery of language.

Edited December 6, 2013 by arc

[cladking]

 

 

The invention of a spoken language may be the single greatest evolutionary advancement by humankind that was instigated by a conscious creative idea of an individual hominid, simply associating a given verbal sound to a specific subject, a name for something that possibly garnered a great amount of attention by this individual.

 

Most animals have language. Indeed, it's possible all animals have language as well as some plants. We can't figure out animal language as easily as they learn ours but we have made some inroads into prairie dog language;

 

http://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/researcher-decodes-praire-dog-language-discovers-theyve-been-calling-people-fat.html

[Strange]

Then there's something called Proto-Human Language, which is supposed to be the ultimate ancestor of all languages.

 

It is worth noting (as this is a science forum) that this concept is not accepted by all linguists, and that very few linguists think that the attempts to reconstruct or understand anything it have any merit.

[arc]

 

It is worth noting (as this is a science forum) that this concept is not accepted by all linguists, and that very few linguists think that the attempts to reconstruct or understand anything it have any merit.

 

I would agree that working backwards from all modern languages would seem to be an approach open to speculative interpretations. I feel our experiences in the development of our own technology gives a reasonable hint as how an original idea can lead to a revolution in communication. The development of electronics, and computers to be more exact, is a reasonable analog to extrapolate a loose hypothesis as to the origins of language. It would only take the seemingly small original idea of identify a single object by a specific vocal sound to begin the rather logical process of developing spoken language.

 

The novel idea once shared divides the groups members into those that can understand this abstract idea and those that cannot. Those that will learn and those that never can. This is all that is needed for specialization to slowly modify this group through evolutionary means. It is a reasonable assumption that this process over time would allow the selection of increased intelligence over, say, physical strength and even maybe health, that prior was the dominant determining factor before the development of language. It could also be assumed that in time language could equal and over take physical strength as the dominate trait, making language and its accompanying intelligence the eventual dominating factor in determining survival over time.

 

You can speculate multiple scenarios with this model. What would be the reason that evolution allowed some to be farsighted (Hyperopia) and Nearsighted (myopic)? Being myopic in a world full of predators would seem an evolutionary oversight. (no pun intended) Could language have allowed this trait to be passed on more readily? Could verbal communication have created a safer or more equitable tribal environment for those possessing this condition? They would have been poorly suited for sighting game or throwing spears. But with language and the communication of ideas these members may have added the larger share of innovative ideas to survival.

Edited December 7, 2013 by arc