Part I: Human and Language Evolution

Vermont Life

Part I:

What is Language and Where Did it Come From?

Language is Culture. Culture is Language.

 

 

Introduction

Language is a key component of what it means to be human, and without an understanding of how human beings obtained language, it becomes impossible to explain and understand ourselves. Language evolution is part of human evolution, and it makes sense only if considered as a part of human evolution. “Language is what determines the meaning of words and signs and what combines them into meaningful wholes, wholes that add up to conversations, speeches, essays, epic poems, etc. Language goes beyond that even; it’s what makes your thoughts truly meaningful, what builds your ideas into structured wholes.”[1]

 

Niche Construction Theory

To begin to understand human language, it is important to ponder how humans have a communication system different from other animals. The main question to ask is: what selected for language? Different theories have been proposed, but one that seems plausible is the idea that our ancestor’s foraging strategies changed (Bickerton, p.155). Human ancestors were likely faced with two constraints: On the one hand, predators called for an increase in the size of foraging groups, for protection. However, foraging in large groups would have been less efficient for human ancestors because it would have been too hard to find enough food for everyone to eat in a relatively small area. This would have caused a strong selective pressure for them to break up into smaller groups. This adaptation would have caused language to develop out of a need for social control (Bickerton, p.159).  Human ancestors had to develop a way to communicate with one another, and recruit members, to direct the group towards obtaining food.

This niche construction theory, the theory that recognizes animals themselves play a vital role to play in their own evolution, suggests how genes and behavior can change together (Bickerton, p.93). The animals modify their environments, and these modified environments select for further genetic variations in the animals (Bickerton, p.99). In the case of human beings, one of the main things gained over time is a large brain. Our need for language resulted in an increase in brain size (Bickerton, p.34). The first human ancestors, Australopithecines, had a brain size of about 400-550 cm3. Homo Habilis had a brain size of about 600-800cm3. The brain continued to increase in size, reaching a measurement of 800-1000cm3 in Homo Erectus and then 1100-1500cm3 in Homo Sapiens.[2] Brain size increased as the need for a more developed communication system grew. Simple gestures and speech sounds moved to the articulation of words, which resulted in the need for a larger and more specialized brain.

The human brain developed to be able to receive information from the senses, send it to be analyzed for identification, choose a course of action based on the analysis, and then send an order to execute that action (Bickterton, p.193). Language seems to have developed out of a means to “transcend our isolation and have some sort of connection with one another,” which was much simpler when communication was simply for survival. [3] Once humans were able to easily achieve basic needs (biological, physiological and safety) they began to develop greater needs, growth needs (cognitive, aesthetic, and self-actualization).

In order for humans to reach the greatest level of personal potential and self-fulfillment, a more specialized system of language – a system of language that allows for one to relate intangible ideas with tangible things became required. A more specialized system of language, a symbolic language, allows for humans to more readily communicate about non-empirical concepts (e.g. mental states).  For example, humans came up with a word for ‘water’, or ‘lion’, words necessary to understand in order to fulfill basic human needs and keep out of harm’s way.

Language becomes more complicated when this same system of symbols is used to communicate abstract and intangible things people are experiencing. For example, what is ‘frustration,’ or ‘anger,’ or ‘love’? These sounds leave one’s mouth and hit another person’s ear, then travel through a byzantine conduit in their brain and through personal memories of love or lack of love, and are registered, and the listener responds to the speaker by saying she understands (Waking Life). But how can the speaker know these concepts have actually been understood? After all, they are just symbols. Much experience is intangible; so much of what is perceived cannot be expressed, and yet, when people communicate with one another a connection is felt, and each person believes she really understands another person’s unique emotions. Humans live for this feeling of ‘spiritual communion,’ even if it is transient (Waking Life).

 

 

 

Design Features of Human Communication

To better understand the complexity and uniqueness of human language, it helps to look at some of the communication system’s design features. Language has various design features that distinguish human communication from that of animals, which therein identifies how language experiences are embedded in a rich and intricate social context. Through an understanding of these complex features, one can see how the growth of human consciousness comes from human interaction with nature. Charles F. Hockett outlines sixteen features that characterize human language and distinguish human language from other animal communication systems. Even the most basic human languages contain all these features. It was Hockett’s belief that the first nine features are characteristics of communication held by all primates, and then the last seven features are what set human language apart from all other forms of communication. Below is a list of all sixteen features, followed by a brief explanation of what each feature is:

 

  • Vocal-Auditory Channel: refers to how spoken language is produced in the vocal tract and is transmitted and heard as sound. This is in contrast to sign language, which is produced with the hands, and transmitted by light. The majority of human languages occur in the vocal-auditory channel as their basic mode of expression.

 

  • Broadcast Transmission and Directional Reception: refers to the fact that the human language signal is sent out in all directions, while it is perceived in a limited direction.

 

  • Rapid Fading: means the human language signal does not persist over time. The speech waveforms fade rapidly and cannot be heard after they have faded. This is why it is not possible to say “hello” and have someone hear it at a later point in time. Sounds can only be recreated at a later time through writing and audio-recording.

 

  • Interchangeability: refers to the speaker’s ability to both receive and broadcast the same signal.

 

  • Total Feedback: refers to an individual’s ability to hear and internalize a message he has sent.

 

  • Semanticity: refers to the idea that speech sounds can be linked to specific meanings, a fundamental aspect of all communication systems.

 

  • Arbitrariness: there is not necessarily a connection between the form of the signal and the thing being referred to.

 

  • Discreteness: the basic units of speech can be categorized as belonging to distinct categories.

 

  • Specialization: speech is produced for communication, not for some other function.

 

  • Displacement: refers to the fact that once humans developed structural language, humans were able to think conceptually and abstractly.

 

  • Productivity: refers to the human ability to create new messages through the combination of already-existing signs.

 

  • Traditional Transmission: identifies the fact that all languages are learned in social groups. While humans are probably born with an ability to create language, language is something that must be learned from others. This is different from many animal communications where the animal is born knowing their entire system. For example, bees are born knowing how to dance, and some birds are born knowing their species particular bird-songs.
  • Duality of Patterning: means the discrete parts of a language can be recombined in a systematic way to create new forms. For example, the English word “cat” is composed of the sounds [k], [æ], and [t], which are meaningless when they stand alone. However, they can be combined to form different words, such as “act” and “tacit,” which have distinct meanings. These individual sounds are called phonemes, and represent the lowest level in the hierarchy of speech organization. The various patterning of these speech sounds allow for the expression of a potentially infinite number of meaningful language sequences.[4]

 

  • Prevarication: refers to a person’s ability to say things that are completely false, a deception that is not common among other animals

 

  • Reflexiveness refers to humanity’s ability to communicate about communication.

 

  • Learnability: refers to the ability for native speakers of one language to go out and learn how to speak another language. [5]

 

 

One can see from the above features that once humans developed structural language, humans were able to think conceptually and abstractly; humans were no longer trapped in the here and now. One unique and positive design feature of language is displacement; “humans can talk about something that is far removed in time or space from the setting in which the communication occurs” (Salzmann, p.35). For example, one can describe in great detail what happened on the day the Declaration of Independence was signed, even though this occurred more than 200 years ago. Humans also have the ability to talk about what they want to be doing twenty years from now, including where they wish to live or what job they want to have.

However, while the unique design features of language have their effectiveness, language also makes human communication and social relationships problematic. Another unique feature of human language is prevarication; a person has the ability to say things that are completely false, a deception that is not common among other animals (Salzmann, p.36). By the time children turn three-years-old, about 70% of them are capable of lying.[6] Then, by age four, their rate of lying will peak when they are told not to lie. Young children lie about their actions, but not about their feelings. At age ten, their lying is more sophisticated, and cheating becomes more common (Lying).

People lie mainly to dodge trouble, to make themselves look good, or to avoid discomfort to others; it is a means of preserving social relations. Think about the role of ‘white’ lies: people compliment friends or family members on their inedible cooking, praise colleagues’ weak and disorganized first drafts, and a doctor may tell a depressed patient he has a 50-50 chance of a long-term recovery when she is confident he will only live another eight months. While at times these lies may seem harmless, these situations allow one to see how language can change one’s life. Lying is perceived as morally wrong, and while perfect honesty may seem second best next to compassion, respect, and justice in certain situations, it must be remembered that, as Immanuel Kant states, all people are born with an “intrinsic worth.” Lying corrupts a human beings ability to make free, rational choices and lies rob others of their freedom to choose rationally; it robs people of their human dignity and autonomy. [7]

Again, it is reiterated that social interaction provided the pressure that selected for language, and when our ancestors began to use language, symbols were also created. These symbols set the whole process of language evolution in motion. As language evolved, the human brain became bigger and more specialized. With specialization came the ability to consciously perceive and understand how every single human experience plays a crucial role in defining one’s reality.

One must not be a passive observer in one’s own life, because in being passive, one is sleepwalking through her waking life; she is going to miss the majority of things the world has to offer, which when missed causes one to live a life without purpose. Everything one sees or hears in one’s surroundings is specific to the individual; how one chooses to focus her concentration is what creates a subjective perspective, and this perspective is what shapes each human being. “Our niche gave us language, language gave us intelligence, but only the wise use of that intelligence can keep us free and fully human” (Bickerton, p.249).

“Certain ways of speaking the same language may differentiate men from women, the young from the old, the poor from the rich, and the like” (Salzmann, p.244). Benjamin Lee Whorf set forth a double principle to further explain: the principle of linguistic determinism (the way one thinks determines the language one speaks), and linguistic relativity (differences among languages must therefore be reflected in the different worldviews of speakers) (Salzmann, p.54). Because the world can be seen through different lenses and interpreted in multiple ways, the people, gestures, and moments each individual experiences create one’s own reality.

 

Dell Hymes’ S-P-E-A-K-I-N-G Model

“Language makes us free as individuals but chains us socially.”[8] The social rules of language often force human beings to respond in certain ways. Dell Hymes’ mnemonic device, S-P-E-A-K-I-N-G (for setting and scene, participants, ends, act sequence, key, instrumentalities, norms and genre) helps us look at the complexity of speech events (e.g. interview, telephone inquiry, dialogue, confession to a priest, etc.). His model enforces the notion that to speak a language correctly, not only does one need to learn its vocabulary and grammar, but one also needs to learn the context in which words are used; speech does not occur in a vacuum, but within a specific context.

“Setting refers to the time and place of a speech act and, in general, to the physical circumstances.”[9] Settings will vary from one instance to the next, even if the events are the same kind, but the variation has culturally recognized limits (Salzmann, p.249). For example, asking a friend if he wants to go out for drinks after watching a baseball game on a Friday night is an appropriate invitation; however, inviting a friend to a bar during a church service is inappropriate. Hymes distinguishes between setting and scene by designating scene as the “psychological setting” (Hymes, pp.55-56). One can imagine the identical setting and participants, but completely different scenes: for example, the announcement of a co-workers pregnancy versus the announcement of a fatal accident in a conference room. Setting and scene demonstrate how the context of situation matters.

The next component, participants, includes not only the sender of a message and the receiver, but anyone who perceives the message (Salzmann, p.248). The characteristics of the participants: age, gender, ethnic affiliation, relationship among participants, social status, degree to which they are acquainted, and other factors influence communication (Salzmann, p.248). For example, the utterance, “There aren’t enough chairs” to one’s wife means ‘Wow! I am popular;’ but to a janitor it means, ‘Go get some more chairs’ (Clark, p.277). To understand meaning requires knowledge of social statuses, privileges and duties of both speaker and listener.

Ends, the next component, is purpose of communicative behavior. “An individual may make an offer or a request, threaten or plead, praise or blame, invite or prohibit some action, reveal or try to conceal something” (Salzmann, p.249). Often more times than not, one’s goal determines how one speaks and acts. For instance, if Jill wants Jack to attend a party with her, she might say to him, “Even Bob is going.” The presupposition is that if Bob is going, then everyone is going, and therefore the person being spoken to should go. The manipulation is held in the word, even (Clark, p.286). Other forms of indirect request are used in giving compliments, commands, and asking questions (Clark, p.279). The problem with indirect requests is that they are often misunderstood. If someone says, “would you mind closing the window,” one is not seeking a yes or no answer, but is rather asking the receiver to shut the window. Someone of a different culture may not understand similar discourse routines.

Act sequence refers to the form and order of an event. Religious ceremonies have a specific sequential order. For example, a typical Episcopal Church Service looks like this: when one enters the church, one is greeted by an usher and given a service bulletin; one then sits in a pew and waits for the service to begin; the service begins with everyone standing and singing a hymn (usually there will be a procession consisting of acolytes, the choir, and the clergy); the priest then begins with a collect (a special prayer); following the collect, everyone sits for the first reading, a psalm, and a second reading; then, everyone stands for a hymn, and the Gospel reading; next everyone sits for the priest’s sermon; after the sermon comes the Nicene Creed, prayers, confession, and the exchanging of peace; this is followed by the communion; after communion the celebrant and congregation say a prayer of thanksgiving, and everyone stands for a recessional hymn; then the service ends with a dismissal to which the congregation replies, “Thanks be to God”. Attention to sequential structure demonstrates how discourse is not a meaningless string of words, but rather is interactional, and has intentions and purpose.

Key, also sometimes called frame, refers to what the participants in a face-to-face interaction are doing when they speak (Sauzmann, p.254). “Acts otherwise the same as regards setting participants, message form, and the like may differ in key as, e.g., between mock [and] serious or perfunctory [and] painstaking” (Salzmann, p.252). When studying language discourse it is important to pay attention to who is directing the mood, and how the mood is being controlled. Some words carry strong, emotional and social values, and failure to recognize such connotations can lead to offensive misinterpretation.

Instrumentalities refers to agencies of speaking and consists both of channels (the transmission of speech: oral, written, telegraphic, semaphore, etc.) and forms of speech (Hymes, p.58, p.60). With regard to channels, one must further distinguish modes of use. Among the Ashanti, the acoustic channel is diverse: Twi is their verbal language, characterized by give distinctive tones; the ceremonial language priests and priestesses use is a sub-code that Ashanti laypeople cannot understand; the language of the ghosts, cooing noises, is intelligible only to unborn babies and toothless infants; drum code, horn code, and gong code are used to convey messages and signals; and whistling is recognized as being used by the forest fairies and monsters who instruct the Ashanti’s medicine men (Salzmann, p.250). How something is being said is part of what is said.

Norms refers to the social rules that govern the event and the participants’ actions and reaction. Norms vary from culture to culture, and within a single society. If the society is socially or ethnically diversified, not all members are likely to use the same rules of interaction and the same norms of interpretation (Salzmann, p.252). When norms are shared, there is less room for misinterpretation and tension among individuals. For example, in a study done at the University of Colorado among male students from Arabic-speaking countries and male students from the United States, Michael Watson and Theodore Graves found that “Arabs confronted each other more directly than Americans when conversing…They sat closer to each other…[and] were more likely to touch each other…They looked each other more squarely in the eye…and…conversed more loudly than Americans…Persons from the various Arab countries [appeared to] be more similar to each other than to any regional group of Americans” (Salzmann, p.254). Due to the fact that American communicative behavior is different than that of various Arab countries, misinterpretation leads to misunderstanding

Lastly, Genre refers to the type of speech act or event. Members of a speech community recognize genres as having beginnings, middles, and ends, and as being patterned. For example, the end of a joke is the punch line, often a pun – typically this is a stupid response by one of the characters showing that the character is lacking in some basic social knowledge or one in which the social meaning of an utterance is ignored and its literal meaning is taken instead (Clark, p.277). An old Beetle Bailey cartoon illustrates a clear example: Sarge says to Zero “The wastebasket is full.” Instead of emptying the basket, Zero responds “Even I can see that” (Clark, p.277). This demonstrates how words can be taken at face value rather than their intended interpretation.

For Hymes, speech cannot be separated from the sociological and cultural factors that help shape linguistic form and create meaning. Language becomes complicated when symbols are used to communicate abstract and intangible things people are experiencing.

 

 

 

Conclusion

Each person is the author of her own life; an author, when writing a piece of fiction, creates a narrative thread. Particular elements and techniques of writing lead the created characters to have certain experiences and commit certain acts. These narrative threads weave the characters’ individual world views (cultural norms) together and create the overall story. Does the author ever place herself in the story? The fact that the author stops to read her work before continuing on to further develop the plot line is enough evidence to say yes, the author is placing herself in this fictional life. These same techniques can be applied to one’s waking reality. The people, gestures, and moments an individual experiences on a daily basis make one’s life story and shape one’s language. The way one perceives and speaks about life and the way sequences of events play out works the same way an author perceives how his novel will develop. In both situations one is aware of reality because one has a consistent perspective.

Language shapes world view, and studying human beings becomes a great challenge because there is no fixed reality; language is abstract, not concrete. Because language is symbolic, it is open to multiple interpretations, and to challenge one’s language is often to challenge someone’s perceived reality and personal identity.

Metaphors not only shape human communication, but shape the way humans think and act. In Part II we will see how because the primary role of language is to express and communicate basic truths about the world, metaphors are proven to be necessary.

[1] Bickerton, Derek. Adam’s Tongue: How Humans Made Language, How Language Made Humans. New York: Hill and Wang, 2010. Print. . Further reference to this source in parentheses (Bickerton, p.#).

 

[2] Salzmann, Zdeněk. Language, Culture, and Society: An Introduction to Linguistic Anthropology. 4th ed. Boulder, CO: Westview, 2007. Print. . Further reference to this source in parentheses (Salzman, p.#).

[3] Waking Life. Dir. Richard Linklater. 2001. DVD. Further reference to this source in parentheses (Waking Life).

 

[4] Trask, Robert Lawrence. Language: The Basics. London: Routledge, 1999. Print. Further reference to this source in parentheses (Trask, pg.#)

[5]Hyde, Kenneth. “The Features of Human Language.” N.p., 1998. Web. 22 July 2012. <http://people.exeter.ac.uk/bosthaus/Lecture/hockett1.htm&gt;. Further reference to this source in parenthesis (Hyde).

[6] “Lying and Deception.” Web. 8 Feb. 2012. <http://faculty.css.edu/dswenson/web/OB/lying.html&gt;. Further reference to this source in parentheses (Lying).

[7] Mazur, Tim C. “Lying and Ethics.” Lying. Santa Clara University, 2010. Web. 08 Feb. 2012. <http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v6n1/lying.html&gt;. Further reference to this source in parentheses (Mazur).

[8] Clark, Virginia P., Paul A. Eschholz, and Alfred F. Rosa. Language: Introductory Readings. New York: St. Martin’s, 1977. Print. Further reference to this source in parentheses (Clark, p#).

[9] Hymes, Dell H. Foundations in Sociolinguistics; an Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1974. Print. Further reference to this source in parentheses (Hymes, p#).

Please Engage in Discussion