Slashdot Mirror


All Languages Linked To Common Source

Old Wolf writes "A New Zealand evolutionary psychologist, Quentin Atkinson, has created a scientific sensation by claiming to have discovered the mother of all mother tongues. 'Dr Atkinson took 504 languages and plotted the number of phonemes in each (corrected for recent population growth, when significant) against the distance between the place where the language is spoken and 2,500 putative points of origin, scattered across the world (abstract). The relationship that emerges suggests the actual point of origin is in central or southern Africa, and that all modern languages do, indeed, have a common root." Reader NotSanguine points out another study which challenges the idea that the brain is more important to the structure of language than cultural evolution.

26 of 318 comments (clear)

  1. All Languages Linked To Common Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Humans!

    1. Re:All Languages Linked To Common Source by Eunuchswear · · Score: 3, Insightful

      altered their environment to the point of allowing them to live pretty much anywhere on or in the Earth.

      That'd be the green plants, you know, the ones that released huge quantities of a poisonous gas, destroying 98% of life on earth.

      Humans are pathetic by comparison.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    2. Re:All Languages Linked To Common Source by ArcherB · · Score: 5, Insightful

      altered their environment to the point of allowing them to live pretty much anywhere on or in the Earth.

      That'd be the green plants, you know, the ones that released huge quantities of a poisonous gas, destroying 98% of life on earth.

      Humans are pathetic by comparison.

      Awesome post! Please allow me to elaborate for those that didn't get it.

      Oxygen IS pollution produced by photosynthesizing organisms. Before plants, the earths atmosphere was radically different than it is today. There was almost no free oxygen in our atmosphere. Once life began to photosynthesize for energy, oxygen was released as a byproduct of that process, just as CO2 is a byproduct of our respiration. Oxygen is actually plant pollution. That pollution killed off nearly all of the early life on earth, radically changed the climate, and gave rise to what we have today.

      So it appears that releasing gas that fundamentally changes the atmosphere is a completely natural, 100% organic function. If anything, by driving SUV's we are actually restoring our planet to it's natural, original condition before photosynthesis came along and screwed it all up!

      Eat that, GW hippies!

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    3. Re:All Languages Linked To Common Source by kingramon0 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Jesus wouldn't say "For millions of years" because he believes his father only made us 4,000 years ago.

      Actually, no place in the Bible comes right out and says what the age of the Earth is. The 6000 year figure comes from some people's (weak) interpretation of some verses.

    4. Re:All Languages Linked To Common Source by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Jesus wouldn't say "For millions of years" because he believes his father only made us 4,000 years ago.

      Actually, no place in the Bible comes right out and says what the age of the Earth is. The 6000 year figure comes from some people's (weak) interpretation of some verses.

      Not even that. The 6000 year figure is from an Anglican Archbishop who had too much time on his hands, and a poor grasp of mathematics (for instance, he assumed that if someone were mentioned as dying at age 112, that that meant he died on his 112th birthday.)

      Why ANYONE would take an Anglican Archbishop's opinion as the unaltered word of God is beyond me. Though it's obvious why the militant atheists would (they think it makes the religious look dumb), though those of us who know where the figure comes from think that its use by militant atheists makes the militant atheists look dumb....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:All Languages Linked To Common Source by Raffaello · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The whole point of TFA is that this may well not be the case. It may well be the case that language is not the product of hard wired wetware, sometimes known as "the Language Instinct," but is rather the product of:

      1. general symbolic intelligence, i.e., thought, coupled with:

      2. the ability to make more complex sounds, due to a vocal tract modified from anthropoid ape ancestors by the shift of the relative positions of neck and head brought on by bipedalism, and:

      3. cultural transmission, i.e., the ability to pass language on to the next generation due to the long childhood dependency of humans which, in turn, came about because our large heads won't fit through the birth canal at full size, so we are all effectively born premature - unable to walk, or even effectively grasp our mother's hair and cling to her.

      Therefore, it is quite possible that once our ancestors developed sufficiently large and complex brains to think with more logical sophistication than, for example chimpanzees, we slowly over time dveloped more and more complex languages until we reached a plateau, specifically, the limit of children under the age of 6 or 7 to understand and learn the basic grammar and vocabulary of the language.

      Any increased grammatical complexity beyond this point would immediately die out since the next generation could not learn it during childhood. Once this plateau was reached, presumably in southern Africa ca. 200,000 years ago, our ancestors had the cognitive "killer app," i.e., modern human language, that allowed them to successfully radiate across the planet.

    6. Re:All Languages Linked To Common Source by MBGMorden · · Score: 4, Informative

      Communication isn't "talking" though. Lots of animals can communicate - a pre-defined verbal code however is something else entirely. Also, there are plenty of documented cases where an infant was separated from human contact and never learned to talk. Here's the kicker: research of these individuals has shown that for the most part, if you don't learn to to speak before aged 5 or 6, it's a skill that simply cannot be developed. The most that these people could ever master was a few broken words.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    7. Re:All Languages Linked To Common Source by HungryHobo · · Score: 4, Informative

      .... you do realise that the athiests aren't the ones claiming the world is 6000 years old right?

      There's a decent number of people who genuinely believe it along with a lot of other very very silly things.

  2. Patent nonsense. by Eunuchswear · · Score: 5, Funny

    Everybody knows the original language is English, as used by God to write the Bible.

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
    1. Re:Patent nonsense. by Zeek40 · · Score: 3, Funny

      All the Jesuses I know read around Spanish language versions of the bible, not English.

    2. Re:Patent nonsense. by englishknnigits · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Based on this post I think they were probably right in modding it flamebait. If someone doesn't like your "joke" then you shouldn't get mad, just shrug it off. If you get this worked up about it then there is something more going on and you probably are a troll.

    3. Re:Patent nonsense. by Zeek40 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Jesus Gonzales, Jesus Guardarez and Jesus Alvaraz all confirm, they read a Spanish bible.

  3. So BASIC, C, and Lisp are all related? by thomasdz · · Score: 4, Funny

    I didn't RTFA since, after all, I am on Slashdot.... but I didn't realize that Fortran & C were both part of the Algol language family.

    --
    Karma: Excellent. 15 moderator points expire sometime.
  4. language by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Funny

    that great spark of power, that has propelled mankind from fetid caves, cruel and dark,

    to chariots, to sailing ships, to steam locomotives, to automobiles, to jet engines, to the moon...

    and eventually to fetid internet comment boards, cruel and dark

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  5. Phoneme counts by Dan+East · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I read this earlier, and at first glance it's counter-intuitive. Why would older languages have more phonemes and not less? That's a lot more sounds to have to learn and be able to physically reproduce. I presume the extra physical difficulty was a substitute for the extra intelligence required to couple many phonemes together to make new meanings. So perhaps a single utterance was used to mean food, another sound for sleep, etc, so that each phoneme meant just one thing? Then it was small step to take the phoneme for food, add a hand gesture to it and that meant eat. Eventually that gesture was replaced with another phoneme, thus you had two phonemes combined like "food + action" meaning to eat. As humans became more intelligent they ditched the hard to produce sounds and used groups of easier to product phonemes instead? I'm not a linguist and the article doesn't talk about any of this sort of thing, but it makes sense to me.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Phoneme counts by welcher · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The number of phonemes in a language has nothing to do with intelligence. In theory, the more modern languages have fewer phonemes because of the "founder effect". If you think about this in terms of vocabulary, it is obvious -- no-one knows all the words in any language, so if a small group set off to start their own colony, the language of that colony won't have the words that none of the founders knew. New words may be invented to substitute for the missing words but they will be different. It is the same with sounds (and genetic diversity, where this was first observed). Since new sound formation is a very slow process, the signal remains for a long time.

    2. Re:Phoneme counts by snowgirl · · Score: 5, Informative

      I read this earlier, and at first glance it's counter-intuitive. Why would older languages have more phonemes and not less?

      This is a good question and in fact it's right on the money as a way to argue against this study. Languages change, this is true, but they don't change in a monotonic way. Some languages gain phonemes, some languages lose phonemes. That's how linguistic change works. In the same way, some languages have a complex synthetic syntax, and some have a relatively simple creole-like isolating syntax. When languages become too simplified, children learning the language create novel complications to fill out niches.

      As an example Hungarian has only about 11 irregular verbs, but this is because their verb system is complex and unwieldy, meanwhile English with its incredibly simple verbal patterns has numerous (and in fact no single authoritative count) of irregular verbs.

      Chinese has a limited syllable construction pattern, and as a result has picked up tones to make distinctions between words, while Japanese with a similarly limited syllable construction pattern uses longer words, and Hawai'ian with even more strict syllable construction rules and phonemes has gone for yet longer words. (I was surprised to realize that "Meli Kalikimaka" is literally "Merry Christmas" pounded into the strict Hawai'ian phonemic rules.)

      So, while I think his ideas might have interest, and could be intriguing, there is also the fundamental problem that he's making a deep assumption of monotonic language "growth" that is not supported by reality. I imagine it's similar to measuring which animal has more evolutionary change by it having more teeth. But everyone wants to be the person to prove that all the world languages are related, right?

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    3. Re:Phoneme counts by snowgirl · · Score: 4, Informative

      The number of phonemes in a language has nothing to do with intelligence. In theory, the more modern languages have fewer phonemes because of the "founder effect". If you think about this in terms of vocabulary, it is obvious -- no-one knows all the words in any language, so if a small group set off to start their own colony, the language of that colony won't have the words that none of the founders knew. New words may be invented to substitute for the missing words but they will be different. It is the same with sounds (and genetic diversity, where this was first observed). Since new sound formation is a very slow process, the signal remains for a long time.

      Your argument for the founder effect works for words, but not necessarily for phonemes. In order for a phoneme to be dropped by founder effect, the phoneme would have to occur in none of the words that the founders brought over. The idea of a phoneme rare enough in a vocabulary large enough for use by a small colony seems unlikely...

      Plus, the Scandanavian languages lost the interdental fricative, while the colony of Iceland kept the interdental fricative... poor standing for your "founder effect" notion...

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    4. Re:Phoneme counts by snowgirl · · Score: 3, Informative

      Babies "babble" in the full range of sounds a human can make.

      Actually, babies "babble" in the full range of phonemes that they have heard their parents use. Even baby babbling is language dependent. Babies don't begin babbling until they are well exposed to the sounds of their parents, and in fact, while developing in the womb fetuses already are honing in on the phonemes used by their mothers, and are born with an innate interest towards the phonemes that their mother used as opposed to any other phonemes.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
  6. Cradle of Life & Language by jimmerz28 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The "cradle of life" was apparently the same place that language originated?!

    Astounding!

    Africa gave us life and language, and now look at her =(

  7. Re:Here's to human unity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I wouldn't read too much into it.

    We also share a common genetic origin with mushrooms.

  8. Re:Not what the Bible says. by MozeeToby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So... you're saying that according to the bible there was a point when everyone on the planet spoke the same language and then something changed and different languages developed. Ignoring details like time, location, towers to heaven, and god's holy wrath; I'd say the bible got the broad strokes of the truth right, even if only by accident.

  9. Re:Here's to human unity by gnick · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hopefully, we'll be able to get our act together and stop blowing each other up (and also unite against a common enemy - government/power elites).

    Just because two people share some distant, obscure ancestor doesn't mean they won't try to kill each other. Heck, even if they share the same parents it doesn't always stop them. If we want people to stop blowing each other up, unfortunately we need something better than family ties.

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  10. Re:But by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Finding the mother tongue in this linguistic equivalent to cold fusion. Plenty of whackjobs and fraudsters claim to find it, but soon enough the cold heart light of reality shines in and reveals it's a load of nonsense.

    If there was a mother tongue, it's likely buried so deep in the past as to be impossible to find. We're talking over 100,000 years ago. That so much time for substantial changes, even one generation innovations, that the exercise is pointless. Even more "moderate" theories like Nostratic, which mainly just wants so desperately to unite the Eurasian families, quickly reveals itself to be as much wishful thinking as actual science.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  11. Re:Chimps by snowgirl · · Score: 4, Informative

    do chimps have the vocal chords to speak a human language? If so then why hasn't anybody taken a newborn chimp and taught the chimp to talk English or Spanish for example? Maybe even an easier language would work.

    Chimps lack vocal chords, as well their mouths are not suited towards producing the variety of noises like we can. I recall an early attempt at raising a chimp in a house like any other human child and it never acquired speech.

    Later the same experiment was tried with Washoe, who was raised with ASL exposure like a deaf child would be. The results were not impressive. She learned some signs and was able to communicate immediate needs and concerns, but never progressed beyond the abilities of a 3 year old linguistically. The research was announced as a success, and that Washoe learned ASL incredibly well, but the researchers refused to release any of the actual data, or anything to substantiate their claims. Having had to raise the chimp as it were a child, they are quite obviously not the most unbiased or objective source on the quality of their research.

    Later, a Nim Chimpsky was raised with intent to reproduce the results purported by the Washoe experiment, and failed to replicate the results. He learned again, very limited communication only of immediate needs and concerns with no actual regularized syntax. In fact, the Deaf reviewer on the team consistently reported that he knew less signs than the hearing reviewers. Concerned he might be wrong, he looked into the reasons why, and discovered that people were giving Nim great leeway in signs; reporting some non-verbal behaviors as verbal communication.

    --
    WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
  12. Re:Not what the Bible says. by mdarksbane · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's as useful as a historical/archeological guide as any set of mythologies. The advantage is that this particular one is incredibly well-preserved.