See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/298033478

origin of human language

Working Paper · February 2016

CITATIONS READS
0 11,141

1 author:

Kwang Hyun Ko
Hanyang University
17 PUBLICATIONS   18 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

erratum to: Hominin interbreeding and the evolution of human variation View project

UFOs and Aliens: Facts or Fiction? View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kwang Hyun Ko on 13 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

The evolution and origin of human language: a biological perspective

Kwang Hyun Ko*

Hanyang University Research

*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Kwang Hyun Ko, Hanyang
University, 222 Wangsimni-ro, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, South Korea Tel: (82) 010-8517-1288
Email:kwhyunko@gmail.com/highway2@hanyang.ac.kr; highwaytolife2@gmail.com

Word count:6532
 2

Abstract

Human language is used for self-expression; however, expression displays different stages. The

consciousness of self and feelings represents the stage immediately prior to the external, phonetic

expression of feelings in the form of sound, i.e., language. Animals such as dolphins, Eurasian

magpies, and chimpanzees live in communities, wherein they assign themselves roles for group

survival and show emotions such as sympathy. When such animals view their reflection, they

recognize themselves and exhibit self-consciousness. Notably, humans evolved in a quite

different environment than that of intelligent animals. The human environment accommodated

the development of interaction, self-expression, and tool-making as survival became easier with

the advancement of tools, shelters, and fire-making. The need for complex language replaced

hyperactivity or impulsiveness, traits beneficial for simple survival that are currently often

defined as attention deficit disorder. Biologically, the mental capacity for human language can be

allocated to only one anatomical location: the brain; in particular, hominin brains have increased

in size in areas where tool-making and language-processing coincide. The increasing brain size

allowed advanced provisioning and tools and the technological advances during the Palaeolithic

era that built upon the previous evolutionary innovations of bipedalism and hand versatility

allowed the development of human language.

Keywords: natural selection; evolutionary adaptations; bipedalism; hyperactivity; self-

consciousness; prefrontal cortex

 3

1. Introduction

Language is a method of expressing ideas or emotions that are used and comprehended by a

group of people, and sometimes refers to the grammar, syntax, or order used for its components.

Human language includes written symbols, gestures, and vocalizations; however, it is difficult to

state universally that language does not appear in other animals. Animals are well able to

communicate and convey information. In gorillas, twenty-five distinct vocalizations are

dominantly used for group communication. During travel, sounds recognized as grunts and barks

are used to indicate the locations of individual members of the band (Harcourt et al. 1993).

Common chimpanzees largely use distance calls to draw attention, signal alarm, and indicate

food sources or other community members (Goodall 1986). Bonobos also communicate

primarily through vocalizations. The methods of communication found in animals are not as

complex as those of humans but are efficient enough to demonstrate the evolutionary value of

communally sharing information. Thus, the question of how human language has evolved from

animal communication has been a topic of discussion for centuries.

In 1871, Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection shifted the core question

of discussion from ‘did human language evolve?’ to ‘how did human language evolve?’ As a

result, there have been many evolutionary theories concerning language origin. For example,

Fitch (2000) proposed the ‘mother tongue’ hypothesis, explaining that language evolved

originally for communication between mothers and their biological progeny. Ulbæk (1998)

argued that reciprocal altruism and moral regulation were the driving forces behind language.

Many of these theories are compelling; however, the shortage of empirical evidence has led to
 4

little agreement regarding the various connections and directionalities of the hypotheses

proposed.

2. Evolution of the complex structure of human language

2.1. Language and tool use

2.1.1. Brain evolution

The evolutionary history of the human brain primarily reveals a gradual increase in brain size in

relation to body size during the evolutionary path from early primates to ancient hominids and

finally to Homo sapiens (Buckner & Krienen 2013). The early Australopithecus brains were only

slightly larger than those of chimpanzees, but hominin brain size has increased rapidly over the

last 2 million years (Zhang 2003), and various studies have demonstrated that hominins have

increasingly devoted energy towards brainpower during evolution (Leonard & Robertson 1992;

Navarrete et al. 2011).

2.1.2. Process of brain evolution

Bipedalism represents an essential adaptation of hominin progeny that is considered the major

force behind several skeletal changes shared by all bipedal hominins (Lovejoy 1988). Possible

reasons underlying the evolution of human bipedalism include the freeing of the hands to use and

carry tools, threat displays, sexual dimorphism in food gathering, and changes in climate and

habitat (from jungle to savannah). However, even with the ability to walk on two legs, the

earliest ape-like hominin ancestors took a long time to ultimately descend to the ground. The first

manmade tools classified as Oldowan appeared millions of years after hominins settled into
 5

terrestrial life. Until then, hominins were not capable of making such sophisticated tools,

although early hominin ancestors such as Australopithecus afarensis or Ardipithecus were

capable of making simpler tools (Panger et al. 2003; Roche et al. 2009). These unclassified

simple tools continued to develop such that the carvings and finishing touches likely became

more distinguishable and more associated with the categorization now used for Palaeolithic tools

(Whiten et al. 2009).

Oldowan choppers were created by knapping or striking a hard stone such as quartz, flint, or

obsidian via direct percussion. The flakes that broke off from the stone would have a naturally

sharp edge. Humans subsequently designed more complex bifacial hand axes and cleavers in the

Acheulean tradition that represented markedly more effective tools for guarding and hunting.

Acheulean hand axes were harder to master owing to the presence of two finely chipped convex

surfaces that intersected at a sharp edge (Yamei et al. 2000). This progress was followed by the

development of efficient Middle Palaeolithic weapons such as spears and awls, which granted

humans even more power (Villa & Lenoir 2009). Mousterian tools mostly used by Neanderthals

involved the Levallois technique (shedding off fragments around the outline of the flake), which

permitted the production of a superior range of shape and size compared to the Acheulean tools.

Along with these innovations, effective provisioning had long been made possible by free, usable

limbs, with which the males would move around bipedally.

Tool-making is considered to have created an environment that would permit more social

interactions by allowing increased provisioning and protection as well as increased opportunities

for interactions and observations that led to further advances in tool-making and facilitated the

concurrent evolution of language and tool-making. As hominins evolved to have larger brains
 6

and became more intelligent, they were able to engage in effective food gathering, complex tool

use, and fire-making (Flinn et al. 2005).

2.1.3. Benefits of tool and brain evolution

Brain evolution and bipedalism promoted a relatively food-rich environment. For example,

scientists have demonstrated that chimpanzees carry twice as many nuts during bipedal walking

compared with walking on four limbs (Carvalho et al. 2012). Thus, the effective tool-making

enabled by brain evolution and bipedalism would have consumed less energy as well as enabled

the gathering of foods.

In addition, versatile tool use enabled vast protection against predators. Gradually, humans

developed technological advancements to defend against dangerous carnivores. They learned to

build primitive shelters and develop stone tools. Humans also started to hunt rather than simply

scavenge and were originally talented at aimed throwing and clubbing. Initially, humans crafted

simple Oldowan choppers and then designed more complex bifacial hand axes in the Acheulean

era, followed by the development of efficient weapons in the Middle Palaeolithic such as spears

and axes.

Finally, the control of fire by hominids presented a pivotal point in evolution. The use of fire

and safe shelters near a river or cave freed modern human ancestors from the necessity to be

watchful at all times. Fire drove away predators and insects, allowed better tool-making, and

provided additional warmth to early/pre-humans. Furthermore, by cooking food, the later

members of the genus Homo conserved energy during digestion, as indicated by studies

conducted by Wrangham (2009), which allowed the inclusion of indigestible or toxic plant
 7

components such as starch, mature roots, tubers, raw cellulose, thick stems, enlarged leaves, and

seeds in the hominid diet.

2.2. Explaining human language: the ‘Evolution-progression’ model’

Humans, compared to all other non-domesticated animals, do not spend most of their time

communicating for actual survival. Men and women alike typically use language to engage in

conversations; we talk, lecture, or listen to others in social groupings. Some might argue that this

circumstance is necessarily not the case for people who still live in primitive hunter

communities. However, the data presented by Sahlins (1968) and the following study by Sackett

(1996) demonstrated that hunter-gatherers led ideally egalitarian lives, working far fewer hours

and enjoying more leisure than typical members of industrial society; yet, subsequent research

found that they still ate well and lived long lives (Guenevere & Kaplan 2007). Thus, even among

people who maintain foraging lifestyles, language is dominantly used for activities not concerned

with immediate survival such as private conversations, lecturing juniors, or listening to elders.

Complex language overall is a tool to direct attention towards human communication and

relationships and away from the diverse sounds of nature, but is for the most part dispensable for

for scavenging for food or watching out for natural foes. For humans, more time spent within

groups instead of constantly looking out for predators or continuing the search for food

dynamically drove the development of language. However, the boundaries of the areas of the

brain used for language, cognition, and tool-making are not clearly defined because of individual

variation and the observation that combinations of different regions frequently work together.

2.3. Before human language: hyperactivity, impulsiveness, and aggressiveness

 8

The ancestors of both chimps and humans that apparently possessed ambiguous traits of humans

and chimps evolved in two ways: towards chimpanzees including great chimpanzees and

bonobos, and towards Homo sapiens (Patterson et al. 2006). Studies have demonstrated that great

apes, along with cetaceans, elephants, and corvids, use vocalizations for group communication

(Goodall 1986).

In humans, the evolutionary adaptations that facilitated complex language development after

the development of bipedalism and manual dexterity such as tool use, fire, shelters, and

community living also resulted, on the other hand, in the lack of a need for ‘hyperactivity’; i.e., a

loss of restlessness, attraction to novelty, extreme vigilance, short attention span for a subject,

and impulsiveness, which are alleged animalistic traits that helped our helpless ancestors to

survive. Hartmann (1995) proposed that the condition of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

(ADHD) presents an advantage under nomadic hunter-gatherer societies. From an evolutionary

viewpoint, these traits were likely advantageous, conferring superb hunting skills and a prompt

response to predators (Adriani et al. 2012). Humans have been hunter-gatherers from the

beginning and throughout 90% of human history, before evolutionary changes, fire-making, and

the countless breakthroughs that occurred in stone-age societies. As humans devised better

innovations and organizational structures to boost their quality of living, the need for

hyperactivity slowly diminished over a long period regardless of whether they existed in a

gathering or farming society. As noted by Diamond (1998), the transition in which both farming

and gathering coexisted was slow and obscure. Overall, the frequency of genetic variants

identified as contributing to ADHD indicates that the trait had provided a survival advantage in

the past (Arcos-Burgos & Acosta 2007). Thus, in actuality the terms ‘attention

deficit/hyperactivity’ serve as only a description of specific symptoms rather than representing a

 9

genetic disorder or disease (Boffey 2014; Saul 2014). The occurrence of not only ADHD but

some learning disabilities are also consistent with this line of reasoning. Although not labelled as

a learning disability, ADHD as well as disabilities such as dyslexia or dysgraphia are highly

concurrent with anomalies in a similar brain region (Mayes et al. 2000), supporting this

conjecture.

3. Social cohesion and intelligence

As discussed above, over time a relatively safe environment replaced the requirement for

‘hyperfocus’ (immediate survival traits) with that for social bonds, leading to natural selection

that produced exceptional self-consciousness (intelligence). Social cohesion is defined as

humans interacting and spending time among themselves; below, we present the association

between social cohesion and self-consciousness (intelligence) along with related findings from

animal behaviour studies.

3.1. Relationship between animal intelligence (self-consciousness) and social structure

Avian species possess a brain region called the nidopallium, which is the basic structure involved

in learning that corresponds to the human prefrontal cortex, and multiple examples of avian

intelligence have been published. For example, zoologists at Cambridge found that a rook, a

member of the crow family (Corvidae), was able to drop pebbles into a jar that was partly filled

with water to raise the water level and permit it to drink from the jar. The crow in this

experiment chose to drop the largest pebbles first, apparently knowing that the water level would

rise faster therefrom (Bird & Emery 2009).

 10

Among ‘bird-brains’, sociality has been thought to be an impetus for intelligence, especially

for most corvids and parrots, which are considered to be among the most intelligent and

opportunistic avian species owing to their complex social structure (Bond et al. 2003). Corvid

species divide into groups to nest and protect territories. Some use teamwork for hunting, during

which one bird distracts while the other catches the prey, and certain social activities require

individual identification. Corvids are also known for cooperative breeding and elaborate social

play such as ‘follow the leader’ or ‘king of the mountain’ (Gill 1995).

The association between social cohesion and intelligence is not simply limited to corvids. For

many other species of animals, the structure of their societies is believed to be the driving factor

behind their intelligence increase (Emery & Clayton 2004). Elephants, for example, are a family-

oriented species that show empathy and express concern for individuals. They mourn for their

dead, offer care and aid to the dying, and gently scan the bones of their own kind, regardless of

their relationship (McComb et al. 2006). However, even though herd animals live collectively,

their social structure is generally very limited. ‘In a buffalo herd, Bob doesn't care who Betty is,’

stated animal biologist Christine Drea (2009). Mammals such as buffalos, therefore, exhibit little

cognitive ability. In contrast, carnivores that must hunt to survive are generally more intelligent

than herbivores because hunting as opposed to consuming herbiage requires coordination and

planning. On the other hand, both coordination and sociality are readily apparent in a pack of

hyenas. In an animal cooperation study by Duke, hyenas were released into an enclosure where a

pair of ropes hung down from an overhead platform. Only if the animals pulled the ropes

simultaneously would the platform would spill out food. Notably, the first pair that entered the

pen solved the problem in less than two minutes (Drea & Carter 2009).
 11

3.1.1. Increased social interaction: human language, self-consciousness, and high intelligence

Intelligence is derived from learning during social bonding and interaction, whereas sociality

provides each unit in a group with an identity. Self-consciousness, representing the height of

intelligence acquired from social interaction, is demonstrated in a few of the brightest species.

Self-consciousness is a distinguished trait that is associated with the mirror test, a standard test

for animal intelligence used to determine whether the subject animal can recognize itself in the

mirror (Gallup 1970). Non-human species that have passed the mirror-test include primates

(bonobo, chimpanzee, orang-utan, and gorilla), cetaceans (bottlenose dolphin, killer whale),

elephants, and corvids (Eurasian magpie); these results substantiate claims that certain species

are very intelligent (Prior et al. 2008).

Among the brightest self-conscious species such as elephants, cetaceans, and corvids, an

association has been shown between the number of social interactions and various learned

behaviours (Poole 1996). In addition, Van Schaik (2006) conducted a specific behavioural study

with orang-utans and chimps in the jungles of Borneo and Sumatra, demonstrating that for both

species, the groups in which each primate had more opportunities to examine others exhibited a

greater variety of learned behaviours than those groups offering fewer chances to observe. In this

study, the authors considered that the differences between groups were related to the quantity of

available food; in groups with limited food, individuals must spend more time hunting and

foraging, and had less time for social interaction and examining others, and thus exhibited fewer

learned interactions.

3.2. The beginnings of human language

 12

The increased social interaction allowed by the development of tool use, fire, and shelter that

drove human intelligence (Mithen 2006) also provided a complex social structure with a defined

place for the individual, leading to self-recognition. Consequently, humans are the most self-

conscious of all animals, with the outcome of such concentrated self-consciousness being

language. In other words, out of an extreme desire to express oneself and communicate to others,

a form of language naturally arises.

The earliest words spoken by humans are thought to have been universal sequences of the

sounds /ma/ and /pa/. Ascribed to the meanings of ‘mother’ and ‘father’ throughout the world,

‘mama’ and ‘papa’ are phrases that are built from speech vocalizations and that are easiest to

learn (Gervain et al. 2008). In addition, a series of interjections was first employed by humans as

well. The interrogative word/syllable ‘huh’ is one of the most recognized syllables in many

languages of the world, covering many continents, cultures, and borders (Dingemanse et al.

2014). The use of the term ‘ow’ and distantly similar terms is transcontinental as well. These

interjections all begin with vowel sounds. The sounds are produced with an open vocal cavity

without any accumulation of air pressure, enabling effortless pronunciation for the speaker

(Laver 1994). The words that followed had many variations, but I suggest general principles that

are considered to have existed for word-making:

1. Simple, shorter sounds were designated for important words of frequent use.

2. Harsh/strong sounds (stop, affricate, and fricative) were assigned for words with

negative connotation.

3. Many variations occurred over time.

4. Be-verbs, transitive, adverbs, and syntax followed later.

 13

The first principle is logical. Essential words that were often put into use would be kept short.

For example, first person subjective pronouns are universally one or at most two syllables long;

for example, ‘Wǒ’ in Chinese, ‘én’ in Hungarian, ‘Mimi’ in Swahili, and ‘Я’ in Russian. This

principle usually works for other ‘necessity’ words as well, such as ‘mama’, ‘papa’, ‘yes’, ‘no’,

‘water’, or ‘food’.

Furthermore, some form of simple human language would likely have existed for devising

Acheulean tools and promoting their universal use. Coincident with language-processing regions,

strategic thinking for attaining the final product or for predicting the resulting flake relies on the

prefrontal cortex and the posterior parietal lobe (Stout et al. 2015). Specifically, simple sounds of

communication such as the words ‘yes’ and ‘no’, words used for planning and following step-by-

step instructions, predicting where flakes will fall, and words that define egocentric direction

including ‘right’ and ‘left’, are needed between tool-makers.

Second, hominids assigned a negative connotation for certain sounds because they were an

indication of danger. Studies have shown that people instinctively perceived danger from sharp

shapes that were reminders of stings, claws, and the fangs of insects and predators (Bar & Neta

2006). In addition, Köhler (1929) indicated that there was a strong preference to match the

jagged shape with ‘takete’ and the roundish shape with ‘baluba’. The study was repeated with

different words, ‘kiki’ and ‘bouba’ (‘maluma’ in the 1947 version of the article), and

conclusively led to a correlation between certain sounds and shapes. Certain sounds, such as [k],

did require a relatively stiffer, angular mouth form and a more taut, clenched jaw than other

sounds. The sounds gave a ‘sharp’ and ‘jagged’ impression. Thus, humans subconsciously

prescribed negative overtones to these vocalizations. Generally speaking, the ‘harsh’ sounding

words universally carry a negative meaning. For example, ancient Greek words such as ‘kakos’
 14

(evil) or ‘kaos’ (chaos)’ are made from a taut mouth shape and closed jaws, compared to non-

negative words such as ‘hydro’ (water) and ‘helios’ (sun).

The plasticity of language, as indicated by the third principle, was illustrated by Pagel (2009)

who compared language evolution to a massive game of 'Chinese whispers', where the last

person in the line ends up speaking gibberish. Languages change over time because of the

speakers’ desires to pronounce words with ease. In old English, for example, the words for ‘bird’

and ‘horse’ were ‘brid’ and ‘hros’, which are slightly more difficult to pronounce. The alteration

of sounds would continue further with the advent of writing.

The final principle implies that human ancestors would have first spoken in baby talk,

without be-verbs, complex modifiers, or syntax. Such unconnected talk would have served its

purpose in the beginning, as early ape-like hominids without fire and stone tools had difficulty

surviving in unprotected environments. Similar to other animals, humans simply remained alive

by foraging and avoiding predators. There were not complex situations, where ‘I would prefer

going’, ‘I go’, or even ‘go’ would make a difference; it was literally ‘To be, or not to be’.

Furthermore, before primitive language and the advent of writing, typical grammar such as

parallelism, run-ons, or fragments would not matter. As complex organizations arose in more

developed societies, grammar structures occurred naturally from a need to specify one’s exact

purpose. Thus, initially, human brain size, consciousness, and intelligence increased concurrently

as hominids started living in more settled societies. A handful of nouns were assigned, with a few

adjectives and verbs to express and better recognize them. Individuals also agreed on words to

express or label themselves and others. Words such as conjunctions, adverbs, and be-verbs

would come later.

 15

Eventually, our ancestors built what we would call human language. Primitive language

before proto-writing, however, was not anywhere close to modern language. Oral languages are

extremely short, redundant, and colloquial. The number of words that are required for speaking

is very small compared to the 20,000 words or more that people generally require to write a long

essay or to read good literature.

4. Natural selection of infant helplessness and self-consciousness (language)

Hyperfocus, associated with modern conditions such as ADHD, existed before human language,

providing evolutionary benefits for vulnerable foragers. In modern-day children diagnosed with

learning disabilities, there is a general reduction in the volume or irregularities in the left-side

prefrontal cortex (Broca's area), posterior parietal cortex (Wernicke's area), and temporal lobe

(Malenka et al. 2009). The prefrontal cortex orchestrates social cognition and carries out

executive function in accordance with an individual’s objectives (Miller et al. 2002). The

posterior parietal cortex, the region of the parietal neocortex that is posterior to the primary

somatosensory area, contains cortical fields, which foster a sense of self and planned movements

along with coding the location of objects both within and outside of the body frame (Krubitzer &

Disbrow 2010). Finally, the temporal lobe works to interpret language, emotions, and memory

(Smith 2007). An examination of the evolution of this anatomical hardware of language indicates

that the human brain has tripled in size over a million years of evolution (Hawks 2014);

specifically, the prefrontal cortex has increased in size six-fold according to the dominant theory

along with an increase in the posterior parietal cortex and temporal lobe (Jerison 2012).
 16

As described previously, evolutionary changes led to the loss of ‘hyperfocus’ in the human

lineage and a relatively safe environment replaced ‘hyperfocus’ with social bonds, leading

natural selection to favour exceptional self-consciousness (intelligence).

Biologically, as a part of the evolutionary sequence, the hominin brain reorganized its

functions away from visual processing, which is important for survival in the wild, and more

towards other functional areas such as planned movements, cognition, and language, which are

crucial for increased sociality and tool-making. This model is supported by the long

developmental stage of humans. The human infant is more helpless than that of all other

primates. Furthermore, human babies fall behind infants from other species at every stage of

inchoate development. The long period of growth and development of modern humans sets

Homo sapiens apart from the great apes (Dean et al. 2001). The requirement of the brain for

glucose mounts at a young age during which the body grows slowly owing to the brain’s high

energy consumption (Kuzawa et al. 2014). New-borns of some other species depend on

birthmothers to some degree; however, a human infant takes months to support itself by crawling

or standing on its own two feet and years to master even the simplest tasks such as walking

skilfully or preparing a meal. A human child remains completely dependent on parents to care

for its every need.

Dunsworth et al. (2012) support the theory known as the ‘metabolic crossover hypothesis’ to

explain human infant helplessness. They claim that the energetic constraints of both mother and

foetus are the primary determinants of gestation length and foetal growth in humans and across

mammals. Near the end of a pregnancy, the maturation of the human foetus places a heavy

burden on the mother, and metabolic demands reach the mother's limitations in meeting both the

baby's energy requirements and her own. In other words, the mother must perform additional
 17

work owing to the large amount of energy that the baby consumes. Extensive studies in an array

of non-human mammals also indicate a limit in the development of a foetus because of the

degree of associated energy drain and how large the foetus can grow during the gestation period.

In agreement with this, recent analysis also refutes the traditional obstetrical dilemma hypothesis

(i.e., large foetal head/small maternal pelvis conundrum) (Warrener et al. 2012).

4.1. Energy requirements and early brain development

The energy-draining perspective of a human foetus, which is sufficiently energy consuming as to

result in early parturition, relates substantially to brain development, most of which takes place

within the first three years of human life. At birth, a human baby's brain starts at 0.35kg, and it

rapidly grows to approximately 1kg during the first year of life (Peters 2006). Although the

human brain represents only 2% of the total body weight, the brain consumes a large amount of

energy in proportion to its volume. The brain demands 15% of the cardiac output, 20% of the

total body oxygen consumption, and 25% of the total body glucose utilization (Munck & Lassen

1957). Human babies are defenceless during their early years as their brains make and refine key

neural connections, a process known as pruning.

The question of why this early development stage exists in babies that makes them

vulnerable to predators and harsh survival settings remains unanswered. A simple answer is that

through evolutionary changes and advanced tool-making, human habitats became a very rich and

safe setting for women to give birth, allowing the evolution of helpless infants. Bountiful and

safe living, moulded by advanced technologies, produced an environment in which hominins

with socially active and innovative brains could thrive. In an evolutionary trade-off, human

infants became vulnerable while attaining the capability to create and handle tools and
 18

consciously express themselves with vocal language (self-consciousness). As the brain patterns

of language processing and tool-making were correlated, evolution passed along individuals who

possessed the intellect to handle tools and express themselves. Millions of years of evolutionary

pressure thus resulted in the helplessness of human infants who had evolved larger, more

complex brains.

4.2. Brain and language: connection to infant helplessness or early parturition

As previously mentioned, ‘mama’ and ‘papa’ represent phrases that are built from the speech

vocalizations that are the easiest to produce, and simple interjections such as ‘huh?’ and ‘ow’ can

be generated without any build-up of air pressure. Thus, these specific phrases were easily

spoken by infants to call out to their parents, to satisfy their curiosity, or to cry out in pain. The

earliest words to be spoken by humans apparently came out of babies’ mouths, likely

representing a language mutation in a new-born. At one point, an infant with a variant larynx

instinctively prescribed simple sound sets for mother, father, curiosity, and pain. It is probable

that toddlers who expressed their specific needs would have elicited more attention from their

parents and group members. In consequence, because these toddlers were able to express their

exact needs and draw more attention from adults, they were more likely to survive compared

with other infants who could not speak (or speak meaningfully) at all. Even if the parents

themselves were not able vocalize such sounds, they would have eventually understood the

meanings of sundry babbles from numerous trial-and-error efforts and from their natural instinct,

which is similar to how domesticated dogs and non-wild animals interpret human phrases. The

evolution of language would subsequently continue as adult hominids with vocal capabilities

agreed upon various sounds to designate certain meanings.

 19

With respect to the biological underpinnings of human language, early regional development

in the brain matches the previously described evolutionary changes in brain size (Previc 2006;

Hawks 2014). In particular, research by Gogtay (2004) has revealed active development in the

posterior parietal cortex (sense of self), prefrontal cortex (social cognition), and temporal lobe

(language interpretation) during the early years. Such anatomical evidence verifies studies

regarding how the neural connections associated with language and cognition are remarkably

responsive in toddlers (Nelson 2000). For newly vocal toddlers, increasing the ‘sense of will’ in

the posterior parietal lobe naturally embedded meaning and intention in language while,

Insert Figure
especially for adults, creating syntax to aid in representations. 1 near
Social here mediated by
cognition,

prefrontal cortex enhancement, bestowed humans with talent for analysing social context and

situations, further facilitated by language. The temporal lobe, last, serves to store the sounds and

meanings of language for possible interpretation. Together, these findings indicate that the

evolutionary increase in brain size concomitant with early language development was

implemented through a long infantile development period in humans made possible by the

improved conditions of life that were further improved by the benefits obtained with enhanced

cognition and language use.

5. Conclusion

The discovery of a Neanderthal hyoid bone that is similar to that of Homo sapiens in Kebara

Cave confirmed that the complexity of modern language appeared prior to 100,000 years ago

(Arensburg et al. 1989). The hyoid bone, which is loosely jointed to other bones, connects the
 20

tongue and the larynx, creating broader muscle movements; this specific structure, in

combination with a descended larynx, allowed human vocalizations.

It might be difficult to pinpoint the exact time at which language began, as animals including

primates, cetaceans, and corvids exhibit some form of communication as well. For millions of

years, unclassified simple grunt-like sounds changed continuously and developed to become

distinguishable and more associated with the classifications now used for words or structures in

languages (Whiten et al. 2009). Thus, comparable to human evolution itself, language has

developed continuously across human history.

 21

References

Adriani W. 2012. Special Focus Box: Evolutionary Perspectives on ADHD. In Stanford C,

Tannock R, editors. Behavioral neuroscience of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
and its treatment. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
Arcos-Burgos M, Acosta MT. 2007. Tuning major gene variants conditioning human behavior:
the anachronism of ADHD. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 17: 234–238.
Arensburg B, Tillier AM, Vandermeersch B, Duday H, Schepartz LA, Rak Y. 1989. A Middle
Palaeolithic human hyoid bone. Nature. 338: 758–760.
Bar M, Neta M. 2006. Humans prefer curved visual objects. Psychol. Sci. 17: 645-648.
Bird CD, Emery NJ. 2009. Rooks use stones to raise the water level to reach a floating worm.
Curr Biol. 19: 1410–1414.
Boffey D. 2014 Mar 30. Children's hyperactivity 'is not a real disease', says US expert.
[Retrieved October 5, 2014]. Guardian
Bond AB, Kamil AC, Balda RP. 2003. Social complexity and transitive inference in
corvids. Anim. Behav . 65: 479-487.
Buckner RL, Krienen FM. 2013. The evolution of distributed association networks in the human
brain. Trends Cogn Sci. 17: 648–665.
Carvalho S, Biro D, Cunha E, Hockings K, McGrew W, Richmond BG, Matsuzawa T. 2012.
Chimpanzee carrying behaviour and the origins of human bipedality. Curr Biol. 22:
R180–181.
Crockford C, Wittig R, Langergraber K, Ziegler T, Zuberbuhler K, Deschner T. 2013. Urinary
oxytocin and social bonding in related and unrelated wild chimpanzees. Proc Biol Sci.
280: 20122765.
Dean C, Leakey MG, Reid D, Schrenk F, Schwartz GT, Stringer C, Walker A. 2001. Growth
processes in teeth distinguish modern humans from Homo erectus and earlier hominins.
Nature. 414: 628–631.
Diamond J. 1998. Guns, germs, and steel: The fates of human societies. New York, NY: Norton.
Dingemanse M, Torreira F, Enfield NJ. 2013. Is “Huh?” a universal word? Conversational
infrastructure and the convergent evolution of linguistic items. PloS one. 8: e78273.
Drea CM, Carter AN. 2009. Cooperative problem solving in a social carnivore. Anim Beh. 78:
967–977.
Dunsworth HM, Warrener AG, Deacon T, Ellison PT, Pontzer H. 2012. Metabolic hypothesis for
human altriciality. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 109: 15212–15216.
Emery, NJ, Clayton NS. 2004. The mentality of crows: convergent evolution of intelligence in
corvids and apes. Science. 306: 1903-1907.
Fitch TW. 2000. The evolution of speech: a comparative review. Trends Cogn Sci. 4: 258–267.
Flinn MV, Geary DC, Ward CV. 2005. Ecological dominance, social competition, and
coalitionary arms races: Why humans evolved extraordinary intelligence. Evol Hum
Behav. 26: 10–46.
Gallup G. 1970. Chimpanzees: self-recognition. Science. 167: 86-87.
Gervain J, Macagno F, Cogoi S, Peña M, Mehler J. 2008. The neonate brain detects speech
structure. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 105: 14222-14227.
Gill FB. 1995. Ornithology. Macmillan,
 22

Gogtay N, Giedd JN, Lusk, L, Hayashi KM, Greenstein D, Valtuzis AC, Nugent TF 3rd, Herman
DH, Clasen LS, Toga AW, et al. 2004. Dynamic mapping of human cortical development
during childhood through early adulthood. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 101: 8174–8179.
Goodall J. 1986. The chimpanzees of Gombe: Patterns of behavior. Cambridge, MA: Belknap
Press.
Guenevere M, Kaplan H. 2007. Longevity amongst hunter-gatherers. Popul Dev Rev. 33: 321–
365.
Harcourt AH, Stewart KJ, Hauser, M. 1993. Functions of wild gorilla 'close' calls. I. Repertoire,
context, and interspecific comparison. Behaviour. 124: 89–122.
Hartmann T. 1995. ADD success stories: a guide to fulfilment for families with attention deficit
disorder. Grass Valley, CA: Underwood Books.
Hawks J. 2014 Aug 19. No, humans have not stopped evolving. Sci Am. 11. Available from:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-humans-have-not-stopped-evolving/2
Jerison H. 2012. Evolution of the Brain and Intelligence. Elsevier.
Köhler W. 1970. Gestalt psychology: An introduction to new concepts in modern psychology.
WW Norton & Company.
Krubitzer L, Disbrow E. 2008. The evolution of parietal areas involved in hand use in primates.
In: The Senses: A Comprehensive Reference. Elsevier, London, p. 183-214.
Kuzawa CW, Chugani HT, Grossman LI, Lipovich L, Muzik O, Hof PR, Wildman DE,
Sherwood CC, Leonard WR, Lange N. 2014. Metabolic costs and evolutionary
implications of human brain development. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 111: 13010–13015.
Laver J. 1994. Principles of phonetics. Cambridge University Press.
Leonard WR, Robertson ML. 1992. Nutritional requirements and human evolution: a
bioenergetics model. Am J Hum Biol. 4: 179–195.
Lovejoy CO. 1988. Evolution of human walking. Sci Am. 259: 118–125.
Malenka RC, Nestler EJ, Hyman SE. 2009. Molecular Neuropharmacology: A Foundation for
Clinical Neuroscience.
Mayes SD, Calhoun SL, Crowell EW. 2000. Learning disabilities and ADHD: overlapping
spectrum disorders. J Learn Disab. 33: 417–424.
McComb K, Baker L, Moss C. 2006. African elephants show high levels of interest in the skulls
and ivory of their own species. Biol Lett. 2: 26-28.
Miller EK, Freedman DJ, Wallis JD. 2002. The prefrontal cortex: categories, concepts and
cognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological
Sciences. 357: 1123-1136.
Munck O, Lassen NA. 1957. Bilateral cerebral blood flow and oxygen consumption in man by
use of krypton 85. Circ Res. 5: 163–168.
Navarrete A, van Schaik CP, Isler K. 2011. Energetics and the evolution of human brain size.
Nature. 480: 91–93.
Nelson CA. 2000. The neurobiological bases of early intervention. In: Shonkoff JP, Meisels SJ,
editors. Handbook of early childhood intervention, 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
Univ Press; p. 204–227.
Pagel M. 2009 Feb 26. ‘Oldest English Words’ Identified. [Retrieved November 20, 2014].BBC
Panger MA, Brooks AS, Richmond BG, Wood B. 2003. Older than the Oldowan? Rethinking the
emergence of hominin tool use. Evol Anthropol. 11: 235–245.
Patterson N, Richter DJ, Gnerre S, Lander ES, Reich D. 2006. Genetic evidence for complex
speciation of humans and chimpanzees. Nature. 441: 1103–1108.
 23

Poole J. 1996. Coming of age with elephants: A memoir. Hyperion

Prior H, Schwarz A, Güntürkün O, Waal F. 2008. Mirror-induced behavior in the magpie (Pica
pica): evidence of self-recognition. PloS one. 6: e202.
Roche H, Blumenschine RJ, Shea JJ. 2009. Origins and adaptations of early Homo: what
archeology tells us. In: Grine FE, Fleagle JG, Leakey Re, editors. The first humans–
origin and early evolution of the genus Homo. Dordrecht [ND]: Springer, p. 135–147.
Sackett R. 1996. Time, energy, and the indolent savage: A quantitative cross-cultural test of the
primitive affluence hypothesis. [Ph.D. thesis]. Los Angeles, CA: Univ. of California.
Sahlins M. 1968. Notes on the original affluent society. In Lee RB, IDeVore I. editors. Man the
hunter. New York, NY: Aldine.
Saul R. 2014. ADHD does not exist: the truth about attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder.
New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Smith K. 2007. Cognitive Psychology: Mind and Brain. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Stout D, Hecht E, Khreisheh N, Bradley B, Chaminade T. 2015. Cognitive demands of lower
Paleolithic toolmaking. PLoS ONE. 10:e0121804.
Ulbæk I. 1998. The origin of language and cognition. In: Hurford JR, Studdert-Kennedy M,
Knight C, editors. Approaches to the evolution of language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
Univ Press. p. 30–43.
Van Schaik C. 2006. Why are some animals so smart? Sci Am, 294: 64–71.
Videan EN, McGrew WC. Bipedality in chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and bonobo (Pan
paniscus): testing hypotheses on the evolution of bipedalism. Am J Phys Anthropol. 118:
184-190.
Villa P, Lenoir M. 2009. Hunting and hunting weapons of the Lower and Middle Paleolithic of
Europe. In: Hublin JJ, Richards M. The evolution of hominin diets. Dordrecht [ND]:
Springer, p. 59–85.
Warrener AG, Lewton KL, Pontzer H, Lieberman DE. 2015. A wider pelvis does not increase
locomotor cost in humans, with implications for the evolution of childbirth. PloS one. 10:
e0118903.
Whiten A, Schick K, Toth N. 2009. The evolution and cultural transmission of percussive
technology: integrating evidence from palaeoanthropology and primatology. J Hum Evol.
57:420-435.
Wrangham R. 2009. Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human. New York: Basic Books.
Yamei H, Potts R, Baoyin Y, Zhengtang G, Deino A, Wei W, Clark J, Guangmao X, Weiwen H.
2000. Mid-Pleistocene Acheulean-like stone technology of the Bose basin, South China.
Science. 287: 1622–1626.
Zhang J. 2003. Evolution of the human ASPM gene, a major determinant of brain size. Genetics.
165: 2063–2070.

The author has been crucially ill and is currently receiving treatment at a hospital. A quick
decision whether to submit this paper for review would be greatly appreciated. Likewise, I would
like to express my thanks for any comments, feedback, or suggestions that the editor or
reviewers might have.

Seoul Hospital (28-2 Yeongeon-dong, Jongno-gu, Seoul, South Korea)

 24

Mar 7, 2016

Figures

Figure 1. Fast growth of posterior parietal cortex (sense of self), prefrontal cortex (social
cognition), and temporal lobe (language interpretation) in early years. From Gogtay N, Giedd
JN, Lusk, L, Hayashi KM, Greenstein D, Valtuzis AC, Nugent TF 3rd, Herman DH, Clasen LS,
Toga AW, et al. 2004. Dynamic mapping of human cortical development during childhood
through early adulthood. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 101: 8174–8179.

View publication stats