ORIGIN OF LANGUAGE:

Primate language
Not much is known about great ape communication in the wild. Like
human infants, the anatomical structure of their larynx does not enable
apes to make many of the sounds that modern humans do. In captivity,
apes have been taught rudimentary sign language and the use of
lexigrams—symbols that do not graphically resemble their corresponding
words— and computer keyboards. Some apes such as Kanzi have been
able to learn and use hundreds of lexigrams. However, apes appear to
lack the ability to learn grammar and syntax. For example, syntax allows
modern humans to differentiate sentences that have nearly identical
structure but entirely opposite meanings, such as, "John chased Jane" and
"Jane chased John." Kanzi, on the other hand, who might have memorized
the meaning of symbols representing "Jane", "John", and "chase," would
likely be unable to identify who was chasing whom.
In the wild, the communication of vervet monkeys has been the most
studied.[5] They are known to make up to ten different vocalizations. Many
of these are used to warn other members of the troupe about approaching
predators, and include a "leopard call", a "snake call", and an "eagle call".
Each alarm triggers a different defensive strategy. Scientists were able to
elicit predictable responses from the monkeys using loudspeakers and
prerecorded sounds. Other vocalizations may be used for identification. If
an infant monkey calls, its mother turns toward it, but other vervet
mothers turn instead toward that infant's mother to see what she will do.[6]
Archaic hominids
There is considerable speculation about the language capabilities of
ancient hominids. Some scholars believe the advent of hominid bipedalism
around 3.5 million years ago would have brought changes to the human
skull, allowing for a more L-shaped vocal tract. The shape of the tract and
a larynx positioned relatively low in the neck are necessary prerequisites
for many of the sounds humans make, particularly vowels. Other scholars
believe that, based on the position of the larynx, not even the
Neanderthals had the anatomy necessary to produce the full range of
sounds modern humans make.[3][7] Still another view considers the
lowering of the larynx irrelevant to the development of speech.[8]
An absolute proto-language, as defined by linguist Derek Bickerton, is a
primitive form of communication lacking:
• a fully-developed syntax
• tense, aspect, auxiliary verbs, etc.
• a closed (i.e. non-lexical) vocabulary
That is, a stage in the evolution of language somewhere between Great
ape language and fully developed modern human language.
The term Hmmmmm has been proposed for the pre-linguistic system of
communication used by archaic Homo (beginning with Homo ergaster and
reaching the highest sophistification with Homo neanderthalensis.
Hmmmmm is an acronym for holistic (non-compositional), manipulative
(utterances are commands or suggestions, not descriptive statements),
multi-modal (acoustic as well as gestural and mimetic), musical and
memetic.[9]
Anatomical features such as the L-shaped vocal tract have been
continuously evolving as opposed to appearing suddenly.[10] Even though
archaic humans used crude stone technology, it was still more advanced
than that of chimpanzees or gorillas. Hence it is most likely that archaic
humans possessed some form of communication intermediate between
that of modern humans and that of other primates.[11]
Neanderthals
The recent (in 2007) discovery of a Neanderthal hyoid bone suggests that
Neanderthals may have been anatomically capable of producing sounds
similar to modern humans, and studies indicate that by 400,000 years ago
the hypoglossal canal of living hominids had reached the size of that in
modern humans. The hypoglossal canal transmits nerve signals to the
brain and its size is said to reflect speech abilities. Hominids who lived
earlier than 300,000 years ago had hypoglossal canals more akin to those
of chimpanzees than of humans.[12][13][14]
However, although Neanderthals may have been anatomically able to
speak, Richard G. Klein in 2004 doubted that they possessed a fully
modern language. They largely base their doubts on the fossil record of
archaic humans and their stone tool kit. For 2 million years following the
emergence of Homo habilis, the stone tool technology of hominids
changed very little. Richard G. Klein, who has worked extensively on
ancient stone tools, describes the crude stone tool kit of archaic humans
as impossible to break down into categories based on their function, and
reports that Neanderthals seem to have had little concern for the final
form of their tools. Klein argues that the Neanderthal brain may have not
reached the level of complexity required for modern speech, even if the
physical apparatus for speech production was well-developed.[15][16] The
issue of the Neanderthal's level of cultural and technological sophistication
remains a controversial one.
Homo sapiens
Anatomically modern humans first appear in the fossil record 195,000
years ago in Ethiopia. But while modern anatomically, these humans
continued to behave like the hominids who existed before. They used the
same relatively crude stone tools and hunted less efficiently than did
modern humans within the past 50,000 years.[17] However, beginning
about 100,000 years ago, there is evidence of more sophisticated
behaviour, and by 50,000 years ago fully modern behaviour is thought to
have developed in various parts of Africa.[18][14] After this point, stone tools
show regular patterns that are reproduced or duplicated with more
precision, and tools made of bone and antler appear for the first time. The
artifacts are also now easily sortable into many different categories based
on their function, such as projectile points, engraving tools, knife blades,
and drilling and piercing tools.[15] Teaching offspring or other group
members how to manufacture such detailed tools would have been
difficult without the aid of language.[19]
The greatest step in language evolution would have been the progression
from primitive, pidgin-like communication to a creole-like language with all
the grammar and syntax of modern languages.[5] Many scholars believe
that this step could only have been accomplished with some biological
change to the brain, such as a mutation. It has been suggested that a
gene such as FOXP2 may have undergone a mutation allowing humans to
communicate. Evidence suggests that this change took place somewhere
in East Africa around 100,000 to 50,000 years ago, which rapidly brought
about significant changes that are apparent in the fossil record.[5] There is
still some debate as to whether language developed gradually over
thousands of years or whether it appeared suddenly.
According to the Out of Africa hypothesis, around 50,000 years ago[20] a
group of humans left Africa and proceeded to colonize the rest of the
world, including Australia and the Americas, which had never been
populated by archaic hominids. Some scientists[17] believe that Homo
sapiens did not leave Africa before that, because they had not yet
attained modern cognition and language, and consequently lacked the
skills or the numbers required to migrate. However, given the fact that
Homo erectus managed to leave the continent much earlier (without
extensive use of language, sophisticated tools, nor anatomical modernity),
the reasons why anatomically modern humans remained in Africa likely
had more to do with climatic conditions.

Monogenesis
Linguistic monogenesis (the "Mother Tongue Theory") is the hypothesis
that there was one single protolanguage (the "Proto-World language")
from which all other languages spoken by humans descend. All human
populations from the Australian aboriginals to the Fuegians living at the
Southern tip of Chile possess language. This includes populations, such as
the Tasmanian aboriginals or the Andamanese, who may have been
isolated from the old world continents by as long as 40,000 years. Thus,
the multiregional hypothesis would entail that modern language evolved
independently on all the continents, a proposition considered implausible
by proponents of monogenesis.[21][22]
All humans alive today are descended from Mitochondrial Eve, a woman
estimated to have lived in Africa some 150,000 years ago. This raises the
possibility that the Proto-World language could date to approximately that
period.[23] There are also claims of a population bottleneck, notably the
Toba catastrophe theory which postulates human population at one point
some 70,000 years ago was as low as 15,000 or even 2,000 individuals.[24]
If it indeed transpired, such a bottleneck would be an excellent candidate
for the date of Proto-World, which also illustrates the fact that Proto-World
would not necessarily date to the first emergence of language.
Some proponents of a Proto-World hypothesis, such as Merritt Ruhlen,
have attempted to reconstruct the Proto-World language. However, most
mainstream linguists reject these attempts and the methods they use
(such as mass lexical comparison) for a number of reasons.[25][26]

Scenarios for language evolution

Gestural theory
The gestural theory states that human language developed from gestures
that were used for simple communication.
Two types of evidence support this theory.
1. Gestural language and vocal language depend on similar neural
systems. The regions on the cortex that are responsible for mouth
and hand movements border each other.
2. Nonhuman primates can use gestures or symbols for at least
primitive communication, and some of their gestures resemble
those of humans, such as the "begging posture", with the hands
stretched out, which humans share with chimpanzees.[27]
Research found strong support for the idea that verbal language and sign
language depend on similar neural structures. Patients who used sign
language, and who suffered from a left-hemisphere lesion, showed the
same disorders with their sign language as vocal patients did with their
spoken language.[28] Other researchers found that the same left-
hemisphere brain regions were active during sign language as during the
use of vocal or written language.[29]
The important question for gestural theories is why there was a shift to
vocalization. There are three likely explanations:
1. Our ancestors started to use more and more tools, meaning that
their hands were occupied and could not be used for gesturing.
2. Gesturing requires that the communicating individuals can see each
other. There are many situations in which individuals need to
communicate even without visual contact, for instance when a
predator is closing in on somebody who is up in a tree picking fruit.
3. The need to co-operate effectively with others in order to survive. A
command issued by a tribal leader to 'find' 'stones' to 'repel'
attacking 'wolves' would create teamwork and a much more
powerful, co-ordinated response.
Humans still use hand and facial gestures when they speak, especially
when people meet who have no language in common.[30] Deaf people also
use languages composed entirely of signs.
Pidgins and creoles
A pidgin is a simplified language that develops as a means of
communication between two or more groups who do not share a common
language, in situations such as trade, whose vocabulary is generally
derived from languages of the various groups. The manner in which
pidgins develop is of interest in understanding the origin of human
language. Pidgins are significantly simplified languages with only
rudimentary grammar and a restricted vocabulary. In their early stage
pidgins mainly consist of nouns, verbs and adjectives with few or no
articles, prepositions, conjunctions or auxiliary verbs. The grammar
consists of words with no fixed word order and the words have no
inflectional endings.[5]
If contact is maintained between the groups speaking the pidgin for long
periods of time, the pidgins may become more complex over many
generations. If the children of one generation adopt the pidgin as their
native language it develops into a creole language, which becomes fixed
and acquires a more complex grammar, with fixed phonology, syntax,
morphology, and syntactic embedding. The syntax and morphology of
such languages may often have local innovations not obviously derived
from any of the parent languages.
Studies of creole languages around the world have suggested that they
display remarkable similarities in grammar and are developed uniformly
from pidgins in a single generation. These similarities are apparent even
when creoles do not share any common language origins. In addition
creoles share similarities despite being developed in isolation from each
other. syntactic similarities include Subject Verb Object word order. Even
when creoles are derived from languages with a different word order they
often develop the SVO word order. Creoles tend to have similar usage
patterns for definite and indefinite articles, and similar movement rules for
phrase structures even when the parent languages do not.[5]
Universal grammar
Since children are largely responsible for creolization of a pidgin, scholars
such as Derek Bickerton and Noam Chomsky concluded that humans are
born with a Universal grammar hardwired into their brains. This universal
grammar consists of a wide range of grammatical models that include all
the grammatical systems of worlds' languages. The default settings of this
universal grammar are represented by the similarities apparent in creole
languages. These default settings are overridden during the process of
language acquisition by children to match the local language. When
children learn a language they first learn the creole-like features more
easily than the features that conflict with creole grammar.[5]
Another issue that is often cited as support for the Universal grammar
theory is the recent development of Nicaraguan Sign Language. Beginning
in 1979, the recently installed Nicaraguan government initiated the
country's first widespread effort to educate deaf children. Prior to this
there was no deaf community in the country. A center for special
education established a program initially attended by 50 young deaf
children. By 1983 the center had 400 students. The center did not have
access to teaching facilities of any of the sign languages that are used
around the world; consequently, the children were not taught any sign
language. The language program instead emphasized spoken Spanish and
lipreading, and the use of signs by teachers limited to fingerspelling (using
simple signs to sign the alphabet). The program achieved little success,
with most students failing to grasp the concept of Spanish words.
The first children who arrived at the center came with only a few crude
gestural signs developed within their own families. However, when the
children were placed together for the first time they began to build on one
another's signs. As more younger children joined the language became
more complex. The children's teachers, who were having limited success
at communicating with their students, watched in awe as the kids began
communicating amongst themselves.
Later the Nicaraguan government would solicit help from Judy Kegl, an
American sign-language expert at Northeastern University. As Kegl and
other researchers began to analyze the language, they noticed that the
young children had taken the pidgin-like form of the older children to a
higher level of complexity, with verb agreement and other conventions of
grammar.[31]

History.
History of research
Late 18th to early 19th century European scholarship assumed that the
languages of the world reflected various stages in the development from
primitive to advanced speech, culminating in the Indo European family
seen as the most advanced. Modern linguistics does not begin until the
late 18th century, and the romantic or animist theses of Johann Gottfried
Herder and Johann Christoph Adelung remained influential well into the
19th century. The question of language origins proved inaccessible to
methodical approaches, and in 1866 the Linguistic Society of Paris
famously banned discussion of the origin of language, deeming it to be an
unanswerable problem. A systematic approach to Historical linguistics
became only possible with the Neogrammarian approach of Karl
Brugmann and others from the 1890s, but scholarly interest in the
question has only been gradually re-kindled from the 1950s (and then
controversially) with ideas such as Universal grammar, mass lexical
comparison and glottochronology. "Origin of language" as a subject of its
own emerges out of studies of neurolinguistics, psycholinguistics and
human evolution in general. The Linguistic Bibliography introduces "origin
of language" as a separate heading in 1988, as a sub-topic of
psycholinguistics, with dedicated research institutes of evolutionary
linguistics emerging in the 1990s.
Historical experiments
Both the medieval monarch Frederick II and Akbar, a 16th century Mughal
emperor of India, are said to have tried a similar experiment; the children
involved in these experiments did not speak.[32][33]
In religion and mythology
According to Genesis, the observed variety of human languages originated
at the Tower of Babel with the confusion of tongues. (Image from Gustave
Doré's Illustrated Bible).
Religions and ethnic mythologies often provide explanations for the origin
and development of language. Most mythologies do not credit humans
with the invention of language, but know of a language of the gods (or,
language of God), predating human language. Mystical languages used to
communicate with animals or spirits, such as the language of the birds,
are also common, and were of particular interest during the Renaissance.
One of the best known examples in the West is the Tower of Babel
passage from Genesis in the Bible or Torah. The passage, common to all
Abrahamic faiths, tells of God punishing man for the tower's construction
by means of the confusion of tongues (Genesis 11:1–9). Local variations of
this passage are found to have followed Christian missionaries on their
journeys across the world, although the extent to how much of the
tradition existed prior to the arrival of the missionaries is still discussed.