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.

Comments

Human language has evolved to help our ancestors

[ArcadeMan]

PC LOAD LETTER? What the fuck does that mean?

questionable experimental design

[binarstu]

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.

Re:questionable experimental design

[dotancohen]

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...

What about hunting? Building? And so on

[wonkey_monkey]

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?

Re:In other news...

[Richard Kirk]

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.

don't forget about the DOLPHINS

[schlachter]

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.