Evolution, and 'functional' + 'social'

Charles Li li at GRADDIV.UCSB.EDU
Mon Dec 2 17:30:46 UTC 2002


Using the expression, "the evolution of language", to refer to the
evolution of hominid communicative behavior prior to the crystallization of
language implies that language was the communicative tool of all hominids.
Yet no one would assume that Orrorin tugenensis, Kenyanthropus, the various
species of Ardipithecus, Australopithecus and Paranthropus had language.
Indeed, most of the species in the genus of Homo probably did not have
language if 'language' designates the casual, spoken language of
anatomically modern humans. The investigation of the origin of language is
an enterprise concerned with the evolution of the communicative behavior of
our hominid ancestors, NOT the evolution of language. Chronologically the
study of the evolution of language begins from the time when language
crystallized, whereas the study of the origin of language ends at the
crystallization of language. This distinction does not belittle the
significance of the research probing into older and older layers of human
language. Nor does it dismiss the importance of the proto-human language if
and when its features can be inferred. One of the most important reasons
for making this distinction is the fundamental difference between the ways
language changes and the ways hominid communicative behavior changes. The
latter, like animal communicative behavior, is subject to the constraint of
Darwinian evolution. The evolution of our hominid ancestors' communicative
behavior involves natural selection and genetic mutation. A change of their
communicative behavior in the direction toward the emergence of language
was adaptive in the sense that it enhanced their life expectancy and
reproductive success. Those hominids who made the change achieved a higher
level of fitness than those hominids who failed to make the change. A
change moving the hominids' communicative behavior one step closer to human
language would imply greater communicative efficiency. Greater
communicative efficiency would, in turn, entail greater ease with which
valuable knowledge and experience could be passed from one individual to
another and from one generation to another.  Rapid and efficient
transmission of knowledge conferred an immense competitive advantage to the
hominids for securing resources and possibly vanquishing others, including
other species of hominids whose communicative behavior was less developed
in the direction toward language crystallization.

Given that hominids within the genus of Homo and possibly some gracile
species of the Australopithecine are generalists who did not specialize in
any specific ecological niche, the competitive advantage conferred by a
more effective communicative behavior may explain why there is only one
surviving species within the taxonomic family of hominids. When two hominid
species happened to co-exist as generalists and the communicative behavior
of one species was more effective than that of the other, there would be a
good possibility that the communicatively more advanced species would
eliminate the other through competition, especially when natural resources
dwindled as they did periodically in a dramatic fashion during the past
three million years because of global temperature fluctuations.

The evolution of language, i.e. language change after its crystallization,
is by an large driven by social and cultural factors. It has nothing to do
with genetic mutation, natural selection, life expectancy or reproductive
success. Confusing the evolution of language with the origin of language
may  result in attributing features of language to the communicative
behavior of early hominids before the emergence of language.

For details, see attached paper.

Charles Li



At 09:36 AM 12/2/2002 +0200, Tahir Wood wrote:


> >>> Bill Croft <w.croft at MAN.AC.UK> 11/29/02 06:56PM >>>
>       One must distinguish between the evolution of language
>and the evolution of languages. The former is the evolution
>of human cognition and social behavior that permitted the
>rise of modern human language. This is of course an
>instance of biological evolution, of human beings. The
>latter is the process by which linguistic elements change
>over time. This is an evolutionary process, that is it
>involves change by replication; but it is not the same
>evolutionary process as biological evolution.
>
>I prefer to refer to the former as evolution and the latter as history.
>Less confusing, and less likely to give the impression that the social
>aspect of language change is absent in favour of some kind of biological
>determinism: e.g. Africans have 'less developed languages' because they
>are racially/biologically 'less developed'.
>Tahir

___________________________________________________
Charles Li
Professor of Linguistics, Dean of Graduate Division
University of California, Santa Barbara
Santa Barbara, CA 93106
Tel: 805-893-2013               Fax: 805-893-8259
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/funknet/attachments/20021202/e279c57c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: oregonpaper.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 142848 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/funknet/attachments/20021202/e279c57c/attachment.doc>


More information about the Funknet mailing list