Chapter 1: Origin of speech

Bolden and italicize words

PRELUDE

-Suspicion (No physical evidence): It began seeing use between 100.000 -50.000 B.C

- Written language: approx. 5000 B.C

FT (Feymann technique): Humans have been wondering about where our capacity for speech comes
from for a very long time. However, seeing as it was developed before writing, naturally, it’s hard to
come by any hard evidence for our theories. Therefore, the study of the origin of speech is as
popular, as it is suspect in terms of actual credibility.

THE DIVINE SOURCE

- Most religions include a tale of how language came to be (Adam naming things that he did not
know in Christianity)

- The basic hypothesis of these believers was therefore that if a child is not tainted by any human
languages, and raised in isolation, it shall begin speaking the language of the gods. No matter if these
experiments have been recorded as successful or not, we know fully well from cases of children
raised in isolation, that a child raised as such develops no language at all, and furthermore gains a
permanent retardation in all future language-acquiring endeavours.

FT: The origin of language being such a big question, it is only natural that religions strive to take
credit and give explanations. Such as Adam being the first to name things, and the story of Babel,
where God confused all the languages, which is used to obfuscate the fact that the original Christian
speech does not exist (We have a totally biblical and logical explanation!) The basic hypothesis of
religious people was, back in the day, that a child would develop the original language of God if left
alone without any outside interference. We know of course that if such a thing occurs, it simply
causes permanent development issues and that the child learns no language at all. The religious
claim that God created language is an act identical to the politician immediately claiming
responsibility for something good happening, despite having nothing to do with it.

THE NATURAL SOUND SOURCE

- The natural sound source theory assumes that language developed from imitations of natural
sounds

- The ‘bow-wow’ theory: Bird makes coo-coo, it’s a cuckoo. Most languages have words that mimic
natural sounds; English: splash, rattle, bang, hiss, screech (Counter-argument: A language of only
names, also, how were abstract things and soundless actions named?)

- The emotional outburst theory: E.g. “ouch” developing into its own word, associated with pain
(Supposedly this is disproven by the fact that these emotional outbursts are associated with a sharp
inhale of breath, while most our spoken language is associated with the exhale. Also, most of our
sounds coming from emotions can’t be found represented onomatopoeically in any language.)

-The ‘ye-ho-ho’ theory: Language was produced out of a necessity for the coordination of physical
efforts, often in groups. Such as ‘me go hit tree until fall down’, or for better teamwork while hunting
and transporting killed animals. (Other animals also communicate with basic grunts, yet they seem to
not have developed language, this is, supposedly, an actual argument.)
-The last theory holds special appeal due to the social context involved.

FT: There is another source theory, named the natural sound source, which supposes that humans
took the words of things from the phenomena occurring around them. Such as animal cries (cuckoo),
their own emotional outbursts (ouch) and their grunts of communication when working on
something or working together. All of these are supposedly disproven. A language can’t be only
nouns, language goes together with exhalation, not inhalation and the fact that other animals also
communicate with grunts, and they certainly didn’t develop language.

Note of disagreement from Bor: Quite frankly speaking, I do not agree with any of the so called
counter-arguments provided by the book, which are seemingly so conclusive that the discussion of
the topic ends completely after they are made.

The author, for some reasons, supports the fallacy that singular theories could causally lead to the
development of something as complex as language. There is an old adage in the study of history:
Those who try to make you believe that there was only one reason for an event occurring, are either
foolish, or manipulative. The fact that every single one of the theories above is disproven on the basis
that it could not have, on its own, lead to the development of language, seems extremely duplicitous.
While a language can not exist only of nouns for things, this does not mean that this theory does not
contribute to how nouns came to be in primitive tongue. Seeing as language does not come to be
from singular causality, then we can also assume that the supposedly abstract things, that had no
sound, could come from other sources. Such as verbs possibly originating from the grunts of
primitives working together or trying to communicate divisions of labour to each other. Furthermore,
the last theory I haven’t addressed, the one I personally refer to as the emotional outburst theory, is
ludicrously disproven by the simple fact that one can still find today, in the language of children, and
acquirers of second languages the sentence “I did an ouch.” Or something similar using other sounds
of emotional outburst.

Frankly speaking, I can see very well how all three of the theories stated above could have partially
contributed to the development of language as we define it today. The fact that they are assumed
incorrect standing by themselves is natural. The creation of something as grand and broad as speech
would naturally require countless factors, none of which could have possibly been singularly
responsible for its conception.

THE PHYSICAL ADAPTATION SOURCE

- This short chapter suggests that humans have physical features for speech production that other
animals do not. Just like we are more suited for the usage of tools, seeing as we posses the thumbs
to wield them

- Neanderthals 60.000 years ago were found to have had a physical structure supporting the creation
of consonant-sounds, while humans 35.000 years were found to be streamlined even further
towards the creation of speech by possessing physical adaptations which appear to be relevant for it.

FT: The physical adaption source theory suggest that humans simply have physical features
conductive to speech, which other animals do not have. Like how we can wield tools due to our
opposable thumbs.
TEETH, LIPS, MOUTH, LARYNX AND PHARYNX

- The human facial muscle structure is better adapted towards speech production: Teeth: uniform
and upright; Lips: intricately muscled; mouth: small and easily closed and opened; Tongue: thicker
and more muscular

- The larynx (voice box), due to the upright posture of humans, it dropped to a lower position. This
creates a longer cavity (pharynx), above the vocal cords, which acts as a resonator for increased
range and clarity of sounds produced with the larynx

- It is however much easier to choke with this configuration, which means that the advantage in
sound production outweighed the risk of choking to death

FT: The human facial muscle structure is well adapted for speech production. Upright and uniform
teeth, intricately muscled lips, small and easily closed and opened mouth and a thicker and more
muscular tongue. The larynx is dropped to a lower position, creating the hollow space of the pharynx
which allows sounds to resonate and come out more clearly. This adaptation heightens the risk of
choking, but the reward of communication is much larger than that. Someone with a thick dick, will
naturally be better at wrecking pussy.

THE HUMAN BRAIN

- Humans have big and lateralized brains. Left hemisphere is responsible for both speech and object
manipulation, putting the two together might let us conclude that the first vestiges of speech
originated from humans pointing at objects they required and naming their tools (Counter-argument,
no structure)

- The human may have first created a specific sound for an object (e.g. bEEr), however the next
crucial step could have only been taken later. Bringing the bEEr into context with the addition of
another sound, such as gOOd.

FT: Humans have big and lateralized brains. Speech and object manipulation are in the same
hemisphere (left). Those two together could build the grounds for a hypothesis that humans
developed language as they began making tools. The counter-argument here is that such a language
would require structure. Such, as, bEEr only having meaning in the combination with gOOd. Honestly
speaking, I have nothing more to say to this, as I already addressed my disdain for this causal view on
things.

Note from Bor: Another shitty argument here. Just because it originally lacks structure does not
mean any given field cannot acquire the required structure later on. Here it can’t even be argued
that they couldn’t have done so intentionally, seeing as the process had several millennia to occur
naturally. One structural rule every generation for example

THE GENETIC SOURCE

- The development of the human child can be seen as a sort of summary of human evolution; It gains
upright posture, a bigger brain, and its larynx drops. Basically speaking. The worthless little ape shit
starts walking and talking.

- The human might have a genetic innateness for language-learning. Even a deaf and mute human
baby develops sign-language (under the correct circumstances), very quickly. Is there a crucial
mutation, or a language gene?
FT: The human child gains an upright posture, a bigger brain, and its larynx drops. A microcosm of the
human evolution that occurs in three years. Humans have a genetic predisposition for language-
learning, supported by the fact that even deaf children do so with sign-language.

Study question answers:

1: I would associate MacNeilage’s quotation about the common mammal activity of chewing, licking
and sucking with the source third referred to as “Physical adaptation source” which says that humans
are more suited for speech production due to their inherent physical features, which are mammalian.

2. The basic idea behind the ‘bow-wow’ theory of language is that humans developed the ability to
speak from naming things in nature by the sounds they made.

3. Interjections such as Ouch! Are considered unlikely sources of human speech due to the fact that
they are used with inhalation, while most human speech uses exhalation to produce sounds.
However, I do not personally agree with this view.

4. The special features of human teeth that make them suited for the production of speech sounds, is
their uniformity and upright posture, which help with the sounds f and v.

5. The pharynx is the area right above the, in humans descended larynx (voice box), and it helps
sounds resonate and be brought forth more clearly.

6. Young deaf children are brought forth as supports for the innateness hypothesis due to them
being capable of learning a language completely independent form speech production. This
supposedly proves that humans are naturally predisposed towards language, no matter which forms
it takes, and which disabilities they may suffer under.

The Borish source of language: There was once a high IQ caveman who pointed a thorny bush and
grunted ‘ouch’. He was rewarded for this by his friend at the time not running into the bush, which
the caveman who had made the utterance knew had thorns hidden inside it. The caveman thought
to himself, ‘wow, me so smart’, he then began naming other things in an attempt to communicate. A
‘roar’ to warn of lions in that direction, a ‘hiss’ to warn of snakes, an effortful grunt in addition to his
pointing finger to communicate having to lift something over there and wanting help. This art of
communication was eventually mimicked by the other cavemen and cavewoman in his tribe, leading
to a heightened capacity for communication, which lead to higher success in all endeavours. The
caveman who was most suited for this type of communication, highest verbal IQ, lowest larynx,
biggest brain, most upright teeth, most muscular tongue etc. This leader caveman naturally banged
and impregnated all the woman in his tribe, (on average, back then only one in 17 men passed on
their genes. I.e. only the leader), thus passing on his ‘me speak slightly better than other cavemen’
genes. This tribe of high verbal IQ cavemen eventually came into conflict with another tribe, and
completely destroyed them due to their higher unit cohesion and communicative strategies. They
killed all the men, and the tribesmen who had been bred for higher verbal IQ raped all the women
from the newly conquered tribe, thus spreading their genes further. This strategy of using speech to
heighten the efficiency of a tribe spread through war and rape, and inter-tribe mate selection for the
leader who was usually the one with the highest verbal IQ and the most physically adapted body for
speech production. Over time (several hundred thousand years of rapid evolution) the larynx started
descending, the brain hemisphere responsible for speech became more complex and the facial
structure became more and more streamlined towards speech production. During this time the
cavemen were taking more and words from their surroundings (rattled, roar, working grunts etc.),
while unconsciously introducing one new grammar rule a generation to heighten the efficiency of the
language every few generations. There were no grammarians looking to create structure, it just sort
of happened because it was the way forward which increased the rate of success in all things.
Eventually we reach the modern age, where big brain scientists in their ivory towers say that none of
the endless factors that went into the creation of speech could have possibly been responsible for it,
since none of them could have done so single-handedly. Yet speech still exists, because oddly
enough, strong cavemen with many women and big spear does not care for the opinion of virgins
with inflated egos.

Research tasks:

A: The connection between the Heimlich manoeuvre and human speech is that by physically
adapting for speech production through evolution, the larynx descended and therefore heightened
the risk of choking to death. The Heimlich manoeuvre is a physical strategy that is used to help
someone who is choking to death, dislodge the thing that they are choking on from their throat.

B: The tower of Babel was hindered in its construction by God who confused the language of the
workers, who then spread to the four winds with their now different languages. This is the biblical
theory of why we have different languages. Because magic man said so.

C: Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is a theory that supposes that the development of any given
embryo to its child-stage mirrors the evolutionary path that its ancestors took. In humans, the baby’s
larynx drops, it starts walking on two legs, and its brain gets bigger.

D: The theory of universal grammar says that certain sets of structural rules of speech are innate to
humans, independent of socialization. This sort of ties in with the innateness hypothesis which says
that humans are naturally predisposed to language through their genetics.