Summary
The Evolution of Language
Assessing the Evidence from Nonhuman Primates
Scholars of the origins of language are customarily split into two main camps. "Continuity" theorists
believe that there is a continuum of language abilities through the various
primate species and that human language evolved out of nonhuman precursors; "discontinuity" theorists
hold that language is of recent origin and unique to our species. The latter
view has dominated discussions of the topic, but recent studies of nonhuman
primates suggest that monkeys and apes have semantic, representational, and
possibly symbolic communication. The advanced seminar on "The Evolution
of Language: Assessing the Evidence from Nonhuman Primates," held at SAR
in October 1996, was convened to apply an evolutionary perspective to the question
of language development.
Seminar chair and former resident scholar Barbara J.
King invited the participants, who were drawn from diverse fields ranging from
linguistics and archaeology to biology, developmental psychology, and biological
anthropology, "to clear the ground for a new synthesis by making explicit
a host of previously unacknowledged differences in definitions, assumptions,
and criteria for accepting evidence that characterize the various disciplines." Examining
evidence from primatology and paleoanthropology, the group addressed such questions
as, What relationship does human language have to the vocal and gestural communication
systems of monkeys, apes, and early hominids? Did human language originate out
of nonhuman precursors, and if so, which ones? How can questions about the evolution
of language be approached, given the difficulties of amassing evidence from subjects
who do not speak (monkeys and apes) or who are long dead (hominids)?
The first step was to identify some of the different
definitions, assumptions, and criteria for evidence that characterize the various
disciplines. Discussions were at times passionate. "Things got a little
hot," King said, "especially between those of us who directly observe
monkeys and apes and those who don't." Nevertheless, the group agreed that
the continuity/discontinuity labels are too restrictive and that future research
should examine changes in individual features of language and language use over
time. A related topic of discussion concerned the double standard in research
on apes and humans, and how systems of measurement help determine not only the
questions scholars ask about the origins of language but also their answers.
"Our differences were really evidential, not definitional," King
said. "We disagreed on what we see nonhuman primates as capable of doing
and what we see in the archaeological record as evidence for language. Most of
us were convinced by the evidence for the existence of precursors to languagelike
abilities in monkeys and apes, including the ability to refer to specific items
in the environment rather than just communicate arousal level." Participants
were in accord that language is learned rather than instinctive, and that it
evolves out of interactions with others.
The advanced seminar's prolonged interdisciplinary exchange
of ideas led to many new insights. "Our goal was not to reach consensus
but rather to clear the ground for a new synthesis," King noted. "We
took the points of disagreement that emerged and turned them into research agendas." Some
of the participants have become engaged in collaborative projects with one another
as a direct result of the seminar. "By week's end," King said, "All
of us were equally exhilarated and exhausted."
|
Advanced Seminars
Home Page
SAR Home
|
