<html>
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, <b>NOT</b> 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.
<br><br>
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. <br><br>
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.<br><br>
For details, see attached paper.<br><br>
Charles Li <br><br>
<br><br>
At 09:36 AM 12/2/2002 +0200, Tahir Wood wrote:<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>>>> Bill Croft
<w.croft@MAN.AC.UK> 11/29/02 06:56PM >>><br>
One must distinguish between the evolution
of language<br>
and the evolution of languages. The former is the evolution<br>
of human cognition and social behavior that permitted the<br>
rise of modern human language. This is of course an<br>
instance of biological evolution, of human beings. The<br>
latter is the process by which linguistic elements change<br>
over time. This is an evolutionary process, that is it<br>
involves change by replication; but it is not the same<br>
evolutionary process as biological evolution. <br><br>
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'.<br>
Tahir<br>
</blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
___________________________________________________<br>
Charles Li<br>
Professor of Linguistics, Dean of Graduate Division<br>
University of California, Santa Barbara<br>
Santa Barbara, CA 93106<br>
Tel:
805-893-2013<x-tab> </x-tab><x-tab> </x-tab>Fax:
805-893-8259</html>