Slashdot Mirror
Language May Have Evolved Earlier Than Supposed
Science News reports on research suggesting that humans' language ability may have developed earlier than we thought. Scientists used CT scanning of H. heidelbergensis skulls, more than 530,000 years old, to reconstruct the structure of the ear canal of this Neanderthal ancestor. They found evidence that the ears of these early hominids would have had a sensitivity peak in the same 2-4 KHz range that the ears of modern humans do — the range in which most information is carried in language. Sensory systems are neurologically expensive, and it's unlikely that the body would invest the resources in maintaining such a system if it didn't serve a purpose. Quoting: "It may be time to rethink the stereotype of grunting, wordless Neanderthals. The prehistoric humans may have been quite chatty — at least if the ear canals of their ancestors are any indication. The findings suggest human speech may have originated earlier than some researchers contend. Anthropologists disagree about whether language sprang up rapidly around 50,000 years ago or emerged more gradually over a longer period of time..."
The holes in the Neanderthal bone flute were carved (no internal fracturing or splintering, as you would expect from an animal bite) and regional variations in Neanderthal tools in Britain have suggested the possibility of regional culture at a very early date. These have long hinted at language being a much earlier development than believed. This adds a lot of weight to the argument, but it is the fact that there are an overwhelming number of pointers and indicators for language that should clinch it. Studies on hominids that far back is inherently speculative, which means those doing the studying have to carefully examine evidence with a skeptical eye. As a result, no one discovery will ever cause a radical shift in and of itself, but radical shifts - when they happen - will be all the more stunning.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.
--Mark Twain
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
do it. check this out. It's semi-relevant and too cool. http://www.livescience.com/animals/prairie_dogs_041206.html
Your typical MySpace/Facebook user has ears that can handle 2-4 KHz too. Doesn't necessarily correlate to speaking ability.
How about a scientific study on human speech since the dawn of Eternal September?
So wait, because what emits noise is a certain way, and of certain dimensions, the things that pick up the noise had to change to accommodate? It works both ways. If our peak hearing range was tuned to listen to, say, the sound of a baby crying (note this is before puberty would have changed the frequency range common for use in adult communication), or the sound of one of our most common predators, or something similar, I imagine that spoken language communication would have adjusted itself to the hearing range rather than the other way around. Something that is variable amongst many humans seems most likely to be something that evolution would play with. I can't change what frequencies I'm listening for, but I can easily change what frequencies I'm emitting, and imagine that over time evolution would favor those that didn't have to do as many changes to effectively communicate in the most sensitive range, as opposed to people wildly/randomly communicating at a certain frequency range and then evolution getting better at understanding it.
Factor in that people can (and do) invent their own written languages. I never mastered writing longhand notes at University (verbal and written information was different), so I developed my own written shorthand. I expect some cave paintings are likewise early human shorthand, teaching about hunting rather than being magical attempts for achieving hunting success. If that is correct, then crude proto-writing existed for a long time, but was never taken anywhere, and the consensus is that it is not writing.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Even in the non-speaking animal world, communication occurs regularly.
I humbly request from the /. community a good definition of "speaking". My dog responds quite well when I speak commands and has a variety of barks/howls/whimpers. My 3-year old, although not speaking proper English, communicates just fine to levels that I'm only beginning to appreciate. My 1-year old only knows ~3 words, but several hand signs and multiple grunts/cries/etc. The cats that live in my house respond when their names are called and know to run when I holler at them - They also hiss when distressed or purr when pleased - I understand their meaning.
Where's the line? In order to communicate well enough for history to record it do you need a documented language? That seems unfair.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Basing the time-frame of language's emergence based on a correlation between hearing sensitivity and vocal range is missing a very key point. Hominids most likely had oral communication before language. Oral communication is fairly common among terrestrial animals. Oral language is a subset of oral communication, but we had been communicating with grunts and yells for a long time before we had words as we know them. The key to defining the emergence of language as I believe the researchers are intending to define it lies in the mental ability to use language, the largest defining feature of language being syntax. Basically, the capacity to make oral sounds and the capacity to hear those sounds existed and co-evolved for a long time before the appearance of language. The development of oral language would provide additional selective pressure for the centralization between vocal and hearing ranges as it makes oral communication much more effective, but postulating that the physiological ability to hear the sounds another is making proves that language exists really puts the cart before the horse.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
Speaking is all of those things, in some sense. That is, vocal utterances with the intent(or side effect, even) to transmit information or state.
Some people may, however, mean it in the sense that restricts speech to such vocal utterances that achieve a human level of communicative effectiveness.
Our physical apparatus for speaking is also more complicated than most other animals, which some people may use as a delineation for speech.
Maybe you are not so much looking for a defition of "speaking" as much as what separates human language from other animal language. Some suggest it is the use of recursion, which allows for communication of a fine level of detail and abstraction. The abstraction thing is important too, being able to describe what does not exist or what is not right in front of us or what is not physical.
The reason it's important to find when human language evolved to more or less its current state is that it would be interesting to know why we have this most powerful tool that all other living things lack and has allowed us to for most purposes nearly conquer the planet.
Knowledge is just opinion that you trust enough to act upon. -Orson Scott Card
Don't forget the S and the T and similar sounds; they are much higher up in the frequencies than the sounds made by the vocal cords, that's why the claim reaches up to 4K or 40000Hz.
The cats that live in my house respond when their names are called
... and do they meow to communicate amongst themselves or do they leave vocal noises for when they want to attract human attention?