Slashdot Mirror
Human Language May Have Evolved To Help Our Ancestors Make Tools
sciencehabit writes: If there's one thing that distinguishes humans from other animals, it's our ability to use language. But when and why did this trait evolve? A new study concludes that the art of conversation may have arisen early in human evolution, because it made it easier for our ancestors to teach each other how to make stone tools — a skill that was crucial for the spectacular success of our lineage. The study involved getting a number of college students to try to make their own primitive stone tools, some using language, others not. The team discovered that only those that used language were able to make effective tools.
Human language _is_ a tool.
Dumbass.
... speaking to each other improves communication. Brilliant.
TK
Maybe human language evolved so we could share cooking tips, or maybe so we could more easily find a mate, or raise kids, or navigate using the night sky, or yell "HELP! I'm being eaten by a tiger!", or tell our fellow tribe members that a flood is coming, or that we have a thorn in our foot that the local witchdoctor needs to pull out...
The ONLY way to find out things like this (historical FACTs, rather than historical POSSIBILITIES) is with a time machine, which nobody has.
The sort of people who write this drivel are the sort who major in "women's studies", "ethnic studies", "journalism", or "education" .... people who like majors where everything is subjective and there are no fixed standards of proof. I have come to DETEST the phony quasi-sciences.... gimme plain-old physics and chemistry and engineering ANY DAY! (I like objective truth and objective reality)
We don't evolve stuff to accomplish X. We evolve stuff because those of use with it are more successful because we are better at X.
Also, I bet if you take a random group of college students, the group you let wear pants will make better tools: we evolved pants to make tools. Also elbows, eyes and lungs. All to make better tools!
"may have evolved to help our ancestors make tools"
That's a really big "maybe" based on some college students tasked to do it. It seems to me that language would be huge advantage for any activity, not just tool making.
PC LOAD LETTER? What the fuck does that mean?
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Speaking helps you pick up chicks, or nag husband to bring home fat bear kill to feed kids; both will also spectacularly advance the species.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
"Man invented language to satisfy his deep need to complain." -- Lily Tomlin
From what I can tell from TFA, this study purports to test the hypothesis that language evolved as a means to transmit the knowledge of how to make tools. The researchers found that present-day humans (college students, to be exact) can best teach other how to make a stone tool if they are allowed to talk to each other. The authors interpret this as evidence in support of their hypothesis.
The obvious problem, though, is that they ran the experiment on a bunch of subjects that have spent their entire lives (minus the first year or so) using language as their primary means of communication. So what result would you expect with this study population? The experiment is hardly a test of the conditions under which early language might have evolved.
Recent evidence has come to light that suggests that pyramid style chain
letters may have pre-dated Dave Rhodes by a considerable margin.
Palaentologists recently deciphered the following, painted on a cave
wall on the slopes of Kilimanjaro.
MAKE POINTY STICKS FAST!!!
Hello, not-tribe-member. Urk name Urk. Many moons ago, Urk in bad way.
Urk kicked out of cave by Thag. Thag bigger than Urk, Thag take Urk
spiky club, Urka (Urk wo-man). Urk not able kill deer, must eat leaves,
berries. Urk flee from wolves.
Today, Urk big chief. Urk have best cave, many wives, many pointy sticks.
Urk tell how.
WHAT DO: make one pointy stick and take to cave places below. Add own
cave place to bottom of list, take cave place off top. Put new message
on walls many caves. Wait. Many pointy sticks soon come! This not crime!
Urk ask shaman, gods say okay.
HERE LIST:
1) Urk
First cave
Olduvai Gorge
few) Thag (not that Thag, other Thag)
old dead tree
by laked shaped like mammoth
few) Og
big rock with overhang
near pig game trail
Many) Zog
river caves
where river meet big water
Urk hope not-tribe-member do what Urk say do. That only way it work.
(c) Dave Hemming 1998. Circulate how you please, but keep my name on it.
You're a __douchebag__ and a tool
Folks, we have a perfect specimen of the original reason why human invented language ...
TO CURSE AT ONE ANOTHER
Which is something that knowing a programming language isn't much help with.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
or Grrooink, gimme dat rock?? or Grroink, like to see cave etchings? I'm prone to think the latter
It mostly shows that language helps propagate fallacies.
The study involved getting a number of college students to try to make their own primitive stone tools, some using language, others not. The team discovered that only those that used language were able to make effective tools.
Did they also try hunting a mammoth with language vs. without language? Or caring for an elderly tribe member with/without language? Or building a hut?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Somehow it still annoys me that people think of evolution in terms of some sort of deliberate purpose or 'providence'. It gives a completely skewed idea of what evolution is and it feeds religious superstition.
Evolution has no 'direction' - life doesn't evolve from 'worse' to 'better'; those terms have no meaning in this context. If one must assign some sort of direction to evolution, it would be something like 'life often tends to become more complex over time' - the word 'often' being central here, as there are many examples of organisms becoming simpler with time.
Evolution most certainly has no purpose - a trait evolves because it happens to be advantageous at that given moment. The ability to speak - ie. communicate vocally, following a sort of grammar - seems to have very deep roots, and it is easy to understand why: a sound signal is fast and carries far in both water and air, and it allows you to communicate with little expenditure of energy. You can use it for mating calls or warnings, it can be used to maintain group integrity etc. It is, incidentally, also useful for communicating knowledge: 'I know where there is water, follow me' or 'avoid humans, they are dangerous'.
Clearly the ability to communicate clearly is an advantage when you teach others how to make tools, but it is false to look for purpose in this - the only purpose of communication is the purpose the communicator puts into it.
If there's one thing that distinguishes humans from other animals, it's our ability to use language.
Hate to break it to you, but humans aren't the only ones who know and use language. We're not really that distinguishable from many animals if thats your deciding factor. Dolphins, Whales, Octopus ... they all probably would like to have a word with you.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
This experiment showed how difficult it is for someone without knowledge of stone tools to create stone tools in a committee environment with or without language. What if both groups had a competent demonstrator of the process and weeks of time to watch the "elder" do the craft?
X is a way to do Y. Y was done, therefore X happened.
Sorry, but no.
There are many more animals that are known to communicate through sound, some rather sophisticated. Various whales and dolphins are known to use different calls, some primates, even some species of bat are believed to exchange information such as where to find food through sounds. Calls are also a common way of parents finding their children when living in big groups. Of course it's not as advanced as human speech, and almost certainly not useful to communicate about abstract topics. To me, it is a form of speech nonetheless.
"bunch of subjects that have spent their entire lives (minus the first year or so) "
And quite a long at uni when all totalled up while drunk and then waking up with some strange person the next morning and finding they can only communicate in grunts due to a mysterious headache and sudden revulsion which also prevents them communicating at an effective volume for most of the day.
It is not an accident that the countries that advanced the fastest during the industrial revolution had some unique language features such as compound words. English has a number of other advantages such as the ability to absorb words from other languages, lack of gender on most nouns and precision.
One of them successfully predicted the world cup outcome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
"Look what Thag do!"
I think many linguists would probably disagree with the characterization of language as a "tool." Theorists such as Chomsky, for example, have always claimed that language must be an intrinsic trait of our species, just like bipedal locomotion which some organisms have. This would hardly make language a "tool," although by some loose, and probably useless definition it might be considered so because it provides use to the species.
did the cavemen go to?
Comparing college students to cavemen and drawing conclusions about language seems a little silly. College students don't do anything but communicate. Cavemen did everything- they hunted/gathered/raised food, made tools, entertained themselves. How do we know language didn't develop because of the desire for entertainment? Maybe they got bored sitting around a fire grunting. maybe they wanted to hear some jokes.
But it is not "language". Language has a very specific meaning, and one of the requirements is a syntax. It's not just that other animals don't have forms of communication that "aren't as advanced", it's that what they do is completely different from language (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language). Language itself is an amazing trait, and the fact that one species on the planet developed it is absolutely incredible.
"f there's one thing that distinguishes humans from other animals, it's our ability to use language."
Wrong. People who say things like that just aren't listening and clearly don't have enough contact with other species.
Reality: Other animals have extensive languages of their own and some of them even take the time to learn ours so as to communicate with us.
We raise livestock. We have a multigenerational working dog pack. They have an extensive language of their own plus they have a pidgin language they use with use plus they know the languages of the livestock and use them to control the other animals. Some city person sitting in their ivory tower misses out on this because the dogs don't talk to strangers, they watch them warily.
The livestock also use language although much more limited. Wild animals like the coyotes, crows, ravens, bears and others all have language. Some of this language is innate - some human language is innate and across cultures if you look carefully - but some of the languages I see in our livestock, dogs and wildlife is also learned.
Humans are not as different as they like to think.
As to the "study" they did, I suspect they had additional flaws beyond their basic assumptions.
Language provides a capacity for learning that is collective and cumulative. The usefulness of language in tool-making and vast numbers of other tasks is obvious.
First, that doesn't tell us whether tool-making preceded language or the reverse.
Second, it doesn't tell us anything about how humans acquired language. Using sounds and/or gestures as symbolic communication elements is hard enough, but that's the easy part, and it can't happen until there is a common set of thoughts to exchange. You need shared language inside the head before you can start speaking and being understood - that's the hard part that linguists puzzle over.
It's highly doubtful that language is evolving. The reason I doubt this is because I subscribe to Chomsky's Theory of Universal Grammar. According to this theory, one of the fundamental aspects of language, grammar, is a genetic trait which is intrinsic to the human species. It's as if we have a syntax tree embedded in our brains at birth, and depending what culture we are in, the rules of our language solidify based on a few simple options which are selected a couple of years into a child's development. If you think about it, this makes a lot of sense: how could a child possibly know how to derive a syntax from a speaker simply by listening to complex sounds?
So while it's true that language is changing, and is always changing, it's very dubious to claim that some aspect one culture's version of this syntactical tree gives it an advantage that another didn't have.
I encourage you to read more about language. It is NOT equivalent to communication, and despite you ostensibly detesting "thinkers in ivory towers", you simple are not going to understand something as complex as language by sitting around anthropomorphizing farm animals.
Imagine same test, but requiring students to arrange their poo in shapes resembling flowers when seen from top of the cliff. Obviously, students which can shout commands to ones at the bottom will fare better than ones which will not be allowed to use language. Does it mean that language was evolved as a way to arrange poo in shape of flowers?
Another possible explanation for our rapid development of language was put forth by Elaine Morgan in books like The Descent of Woman and The Aquatic Ape.
The suggestion was that there is lots of physiological evidence (subcutaneous fat layer, distribution of hair, infants seemingly instant ability to swim, even upright posture) that we as a species spent time (a million years?) as semi-aquatic. (in the sense that we wallowed around in the shallow water near shore most of the day) This had some advantages (kept us safe from predators, etc), but had the disadvantage that body language was lost.
So how do you communicate without body language (which is extremely common and important among mammals)?
Sound - it's the one thing you can pass across the surface of the water quickly over long-ish distances. We would need to pass along some level of detail, so we found ways to modulate our voices to incorporate additional meaning. (insert rising modem speeds analogy here)
Just as difficult to prove, but very interesting to speculate about.
Now where did I put my seaweed sandwich....
That's an interesting theory, but like so many other posts here, I think it neglects to really account for what language is. Language isn't just the physical capacity to modulate sound in complex ways. That's not even the tip of the iceberg. Consider the syntax part of language -- how does gaining the ability to modulate vocal patterns help with that? The ability to inately parse and construct a pattern of words based on a syntactical structure is a deviously complex thing. It's not something a species can just "pick up" through a behavioristic learning experience.
Besides, you don't need to show that swiming in water was the required motivation for gaining benefits from language -- it doesn't take much imagination to think of far more advantages it gives a species.
It is obvious that talking will help people make flint tools. We all know that. But how do we know that? Saying 'it's obvious' is not helpful
Actually this experiment is not how you know that. You know communication helps as a priori knowledge which is also why it's obvious (see below if you need an explanation). You missed the point entirely which is not if it helps but how much it helps... the larger debate is when humans first started communicating, it's helpful to know how much communication helps developing stone tools because that period in time could be a candidate if it's significant.
It's obvious that communication will help because it's also logically true: communication is required to share knowledge, sharing knowledge will help an individual to know more than they would separately. These things are true by definition and logic, you can know that communication helps as priori knowledge in the same way that you know up is the opposite to down without measuring it.
It means the connection between your PC and printer has had an underflow of "LETTER". Best fixed by sending another 100 copies of War and Peace to the printer. You know, to get those fat electrons moving down the wire again.
Two teams, one with language, try to cook soup.
Two teams, one with language, try to hunt a rabbit.
Two teams, one with language, try to build a hut.
Two teams, one with language, try to tie knots.
Two teams, one with language, try to learn a dance.
Eureka!!! Language evolved to ____________ (pick any of the above).
You get the idea. This study smells its own farts.
I've read once that it takes roughly 8-10 steps for live to happen and evolve into intelligent life.
Language, abundant extra brain power and limbs that become free to use tools are among these steps.
The fact that we walk upright and have our front paws free, have a parallel and a sequential brain-half both working together and against one another (i.e. doulbe-checking each other), opposable thumbs and a super-flexible larynx are quite awesome and are the thing that give us the edge and let us win the cosmic lottery.
How awesome that is you best notice when you watch other animals. Apes, squirells, birds or some other vertebrae animal I find works best. Kea's and Crow's for instance, are amazing creatures. Incredibly smart up to the point of being a real nuiscance despite being under protection - have a Kiwi (New Zelander) tell you stories about Keas to see what I mean. Organised raids on food-storages with seperate groups doing decoy operations to distract humans at the same time and all. Crows and Keas have been observed vandalising for fun, independantly indulging in complex playing (sleigh-riding for instance - search on youtube) and are something like a mere two steps away from us when it comes to developing language and notable abstraction.
On the other hand its amazing to watch the same animals not being able to hold a memory for longer than a few moments - a power we humans posses. Along with the ability to sustain supression of instinct and affect for notable periods of time. Give a creature that, and it will automatically develop a complex language in its tribe, all else would be completely nonsensical.
Bottom line:
We got lucky but we are creatures of nature all the same, just like all the others. As a whole, we should act more accordingly - no matter how exactly our language evolved.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Have gnu, will travel.
The results from this experiment are misleading, but to be fair it's a hypothesis that might be flat out untestable. I think we'd need a number of deaf-mutes to perform this study, because language is itself a tool, so asking a person who relies on this tool to work without it is like asking a craftsman to create something without his.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
I studied comparative cognition (anthropology branch) and I can tell you that there are many studies that show that Dolphins use complex, syntactically based language in the wild. Chimps can learn complex language in the lab, but they don't have it in the wild like Dolphins do.
Dolphins also aren't known to use tools. So, this seems to be a obvious counter example to their hypothesis.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
PBS documentary describing Crows, bird language, and culture; whereby Crows pass on tool designs through generations.
http://www.pbs.org/lifeofbirds/brain/
If there's one thing that distinguishes humans from other animals... except meerkats. And dolphins, and whales. Also the chimpanzees that use sign language (both those taught a human sign language in captivity, and those using their native version in the wild), often specifically to teach tool making to other chimpanzees. Very probably some other species too that we've simply not noticed or dismissed. Human assumptions of superiority very often get in the way of our ability to conduct objective scientific assessment of the capabilities of non-humans.
All of those examples you have named are NOT language!!!
Look it up if you don't believe me. It's right there in the wiki.
Better yet, try Stephen Pinker's The Language Instinct.
To say what group members were doing away from the group- hunting, fornicating, etc. Social animals always watch each other's behavior.
But Steven Pinker looked at the structure of the language and came up with some deep insights.:
1. Time is treated like space. examples: Friday comes before Saturday. The fork in the road comes after the oak tree. This structure of time and linear travel is very deep and is found in almost all the languages. Before/after in time, and in space is treated almost exactly the same in almost all languages.
2. Words used often change more slowly than the words used less. Words for father, mother, one, two etc change very very slowly. Among the group of slowly changing words are "before", "after", "towards", "away", "left".
Eventually builds this line of logic to argue language possibly originated to create coordinated hunting strategies, exchanging info about good locations to do the gathering etc.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
When we fully understand dolphin and whale communication, you can say that. Since we've barely scratched the surface on translating it so far, you currently can't.
Human language may have evolved to help our ancestors describe the feeling of a good bowel movement.
There's as much evidence for my theory as there is for theirs.
Scientists also discovered that it's quite difficult to build tools without lungs. Perhaps we evolved lungs for toolmaking?
I admit, I didn't RTFA. However, if all they did was compare language vs. non-language for quality of tool making, then they've tested nothing. Of course people who are handicapped will perform worse (on any task) that those who are not handicapped.
If that was enough to get you do leave Slashdot, and your "contribution" was a measure of your typical input, then Slashdot will be better after you are gone. The better Slashdot comments are the ones that contribute to the discussion, rather than the ones that just insult people and/or say "I'm taking my toys and going home because you all don't agree with me!"
My suspicion, however, is that this mini-rant of yours will be just words and you'll still be on Slashdot next week, month, and year but you might be just narcissistic enough to think that threatening to leave will get others to change their views (like all those idiots who threatened to flee to France if G W Bush was re-elected...)
Well, if language was created to pass on the methods to make tools then it also implies that some languages would be better for certain tools and so forth. Just like computer languages. With English and Spanish being the languages with the most words in the world. Are they the best universal languages for creating any kind of tools? What about the grammar? and how does it affect toolmaking? I better go back to coding...