Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Human Language May Have Evolved To Help Our Ancestors Make Tools

Posted by Soulskill on from the try-pointing-the-sharp-thing-toward-that-mastodon dept.

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.

8 of 154 comments (clear)

  1. what language is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Human language _is_ a tool.

    Dumbass.

  2. In other news... by ThomK · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... speaking to each other improves communication. Brilliant.

    --

    TK

    1. Re:In other news... by Richard+Kirk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, this is how science works. 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. It is also obvious that you can get better at making tools when you can watch someone who is good at it. But you can get plenty of people how have never chipped flint tools, and see how much better they are when they watch someone, when they mutely interact with someone, and when they talk. Some gifted people can pick up musical instruments just by watching, but making flint tools seems to be helped a lot by language.

      The article also says that this is suggestive, but could not be considered a proof. They know they have not got ancient people to experiment on. It is not practical to try the same tests with a mammoth hunt. It's not a time machine, but we use what we have.

      Then you get a +5 'insightful' mark-up for jeering at it.

  3. Junk science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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)

    1. Re:Junk science by Sique · · Score: 3, Insightful
      But it's the best we can have. And there are still ways to test theories about historical events. If you can predict future archeological finds from your hypothesis, then there is a possibility that your hypothesis about the historical facts is close to the truth. If you find an ancient document agreeing with the hypothetical account for some event, then it's quite possible that the events happened in the way the hypothesis stated. And if for instance an archeological experiment shows that some object that was thought to be a tool for a certain task proves to be quite inadequate for the task, then there is reason to doubt the hypothesis about that object.

      Yes, we can't build a time machine and go back in time to check. But we can make educated guesses about it. We can't also travel to a quasar and check if our theories about the behaviour of quasars are right, but we can make educated guesses about them, and there is no reason to throw out everything we hypothetize about quasars or call research into quasars pseudo-science, just because we can't get there.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
  4. questionable experimental design by binarstu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:questionable experimental design by dotancohen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is a classic example of Convenience Sampling, a sampling method which chooses samples based on how easy they are to procure. Guess where the researches were located, that all their test subjects were students?

      Wikipedia calls it Accidental Sampling:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  5. What about hunting? Building? And so on by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.