“We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal…” The Declaration of Independence
The idea that the structure of language, its syntax, and underlying rules are built-in to the human brain, perhaps initially triggered by a chance mutation, sometime around one hundred thousand years ago, that created within us a disposition to combine words, called “Merge”, is famously postulated by the MIT linguist, Noam Chomsky.
The motivation for this theory comes from the astounding difference between human language and any other form of animal communication. If the apes are the animals that we have the closest genetic relation to, how could such an incredible system as language have developed from ape communication? There is a vast discontinuity here that is very hard to bridge with any Darwinian step by step explanation.
Humans are a type of primate, but the only primate that talks. Monkeys, apes, and many other animals vocalize. These are stereotypical calls that are emotional responses to dangers, conflicts and potential mates. Vocalizations are often, but not always involuntary. They are conditioned responses to stimuli. Laughing and crying are human vocalizations, and they follow the same pattern as in animals; They are often but not always involuntary.
Apes can communicate with gestures, and gestures, unlike vocalizations are entirely voluntary. Speech could have come from vocalizations, but it’s more likely it first came from hand gestures and then shifted to voluntary vocalizations. This would explain why we still like to use our hands when we talk, especially when we are emphasizing a point.
All the areas of speech specialization are in the cerebral cortex, the more conscious part of the brain that controls the voluntary muscle movements. The number of throat and tongue muscles involved in speaking is mind boggling and the degree of coordination between groups of muscles that is needed to be able to speak rapidly, defies the imagination. We must have had a lot of time to develop this, five or six million years maybe.
By the way, no attempt by humans to teach apes to talk has succeeded or will ever succeed, because they lack the fine motor coordination of the human vocal apparatus. On the other hand, there has been some success teaching apes sign language.
It seems likely that language developed from some form of voluntary intentional communication. This would suggest that language is less instinctual and more of a learned habit or skill which uses a fair bit of real estate in the more conscious and voluntary parts of the brain. This is also supported by the evidence of the plasticity of infant brains, the prolonged human infancy, and the prolonged period of learning that it takes to master a language.
In my view we have neglected the importance of agreement, and rule formation in the question of how language originated. All languages have vocabularies of words used to refer to objects, actions, mental states and ideas. When words are combined to form complex descriptions, narratives, and declarations, they are combined according to set rules. The body of these rules are known as syntax or more commonly as grammar.
Where do rules come from? Many rules come from agreements. The act of agreement is often signified nonverbally, by a handshake, sometimes even a nod of the head.
As the American Philosopher John Searle has described in his book, The Construction of Social Reality, In our everyday existence we find ourselves already embedded in a world of human values, a world created and maintained by successive collective agreements. These agreements can be present right now, as in a signing ceremony, or they can remain implicit, and hidden, and often forgotten.
Rules and agreements, in order to be sustained over generations, need the basis of a “level playing field” We expect those who enter this “field” to follow the rules and we watch for rule-breaking, and “out them” if they do break the rules.
Rules are agreed to because they apply to everyone equally. Rules, such as - “Do unto others…” , and “you cannot have more than one wife” - only work if people believe in them and expect that others will follow them also.
If we speak correctly others understand what we are saying, because both the speaker and listener are mutually following the rules. The interesting thing about our mastery of language is that we take it so much for granted that it is hard to imagine not following the rules of grammar, etc.
We can look to evidence from brain damaged individuals showing various incapacities to speak or to understand. Evidently these individuals have become incapable of following certain rules, not out of choice, but because the brain circuits that they used each time they followed those rules have now been destroyed.
Rules and agreements are each foundations for further rules and agreements. So that over a million years it is conceivable that evolution could carve out new grooves in our cerebral cortex for the use of learning these rules, and that as we did so the older rules would be more forgotten because a superstructure of rules has been laid down on top of them.
Imagine teaching apes rules. It would not be easy, especially if your intention was to get them to use the rules spontaneously or for them to teach the rules to their fellow apes. But learning and teaching rules is an easy task for a six year old human child. In my opinion, apes don’t take to rules because they live in societies with an alpha male.
There is no level playing field with an alpha male. There is no concept of rules applying equally, because there is only one rule: “MIght Makes Right.” When a new alpha topples the old alpha he may have different expectations and preferences from the previous alpha, but these will just be changed again when he loses to a future alpha, and so, the one rule rules them all.
Chimpanzees, our closest relatives and Gorillas, our more distant relatives have dominance hierarchies ruled by alpha males. They don’t have language. Humans have dominance hierarchies, but they are rule-governed and we have language.
An interesting exception is the bonobo, an even closer relative of chimpanzees. Bonobos are smaller, but look similar. And they have very different social behaviour from that of chimps.
In most ape societies, when an alpha is eliminated he is soon replaced with another alpha, but that doesn’t happen in bonobo groups. Unlike male chimps, bonobo males are prevented from using their superior physical strength to dominate females, because bonobo females always gang up on individual males before they can get away with their bullying. But bonobos don’t live monogamously and they don’t have language either.
Note the element of collective intentionality that’s always present in the elimination of the alpha. Bonobo females act together to overpower males and have managed to maintain this system for possibly millions of years. Bonobos prefigure humans because the females control male dominance collectively. Even though they don’t have words they have some rudimentary concept of right and wrong because they punish or threaten to punish males for their behaviour.
Most of the great apes live in tropical forests, with enough fruit and nut trees in one area to support a group of about thirty. There is a role for the alpha to help rally and bolster the troops over boundary disputes and defense of territory. But hominins, the ancestors of humans, were walking greater distances together and the idea of defending this as “territory” probably stretches the role of alpha too far.
Three million years ago hominins were pursuing a different niche strategy outside the forest, due to the contingencies of severe climate change, as a series of brutal ice ages descended over the earth. In order to survive over time, they needed to be able to migrate during seasonal or prolonged droughts.
In my opinion, alpha males would have been a distinct liability for migrating hominins. Their presence would have discouraged the kind of cooperation and functional cohesion that aids survival when a group is on the move.
Alpha males would have been always replaced by another alpha, unless a collective decision was made by everyone else in the group to eliminate the alpha and suppress any new candidates. Female bonobos have done this without the use of language. It’s interesting that the most advanced case of language ability in an ape is the bonobo, born in captivity, named “Kanzi”
When an individual chimpanzee or a coalition overpowers an alpha, a new alpha comes to power. Only eliminating the alpha by a collective decision makes it possible to create and maintain a system where humans bond in pairs, and dominance is separated from other forms of competition.
We know that agreements are possible without language because we can observe animals hunting in packs and then sharing the kill, usually according to hierarchical status. Lions can agree to hunt together and share the kill, but they can’t seem to agree to share things equally. This seems to be related to the presence of an alpha male based hierarchy.
Certainly there are all too numerous examples of humans sharing unequally, but if we narrow our examination to include only nomadic hunting and gathering societies, then, according to the findings of Anthropologist Christopher Boehm, described in his book, Hierarchy in the Forest, nomadic hunter-gatherers from the far corners of the earth, universally distribute shares of meat from large kills in a roughly equal fashion to all families in their group.
Not coincidentally, as Boehm notes, hunter-gatherers are often obsessed with suppressing greediness, boasting, and anger, They use social control through ridicule, gossip, and shunning. they create a “moral community” that actively promotes egalitarianism.
Eliminating and suppressing alpha-male behaviour has enhanced the survivability of hunting and gathering societies. One reason for this is that hunters are not always lucky, and if successful hunters don’t share in good times, they risk starving when they hit a dry spell.
By eliminating the alpha male, then establishing pair-bonds, human communities were first able to collectively regulate behaviour by community-enforced “rules”, although, before language they were not rules as we know them today, but more feelings and emotions. The feeling of what is fair and what is not, can be shared amongst a group, and the desire to be with one’s beloved and to facilitate the same for others does not necessarily require words.
Monogamy could have been inspired through emotions, perhaps even love, before language or any form of reason existed. But the collective creation and maintenance of monogamy created a level playing field in which those who excel at things other than dominance, can contribute to the whole community, rather than taking over everything, as the alpha does.
According to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, all living things are descended from a single ancestor. What I am proposing, is that all human collective decisions, including those that were used to create language, are descended from that first collective decision to eliminate the alpha male and replace him with monogamous pair-bonds.
By this collective act, a level playing field was created, the idea of equality was born, and from this beginning language as a rule bound way of sharing information became possible.
Even though language wasn’t asking to be spoken, we collectively created it by first calling into being the conditions of its possibility - monogamy and equitable sharing. It was in this collective act that we created ourselves as human beings.
As the Declaration of Independence states, humankind was created equally, and the concept of equality comes from the human ability to maintain equality through collective action.
