"Out-of-Africa" hypothesis for origin of Language may not be correct

[naragdaban]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120215143001.htm

In the beginning was the word -- yes, but where exactly? Last year, Quentin Atkinson, a cultural anthropologist at Auckland University in New Zealand, proposed that the cradle of language could be localized in the southwest of Africa. The report, which appeared in Science, was seized upon by the media and caused something of a sensation. Now however, LMU linguist Michael Cysouw has published a commentary in Science which argues that this neat "Out-of-Africa" hypothesis for the origin of language is not adequately supported by the data presented. The search for the site of origin of language remains very much alive.

I think it is more likely that language appeared independently in many parts of the world. Some people have postulated a "superfamily" of the Indo-European, Uralic and Altaic, Afro-Asiatic, Dravidian, and Kartvelian (Georgian) languages that originates in the Caucasus or in pre-historica Mesopotamia. However, this is highly speculative. This only accounts for about half of the people in the world.

[Scootaloo]

1. Language almost certainly predates our own species

And is extremely mutable. Trying to find a point of origin seems a bit quixotic

[Lydia Leftcoast]

2. Barring the development of a time machine, the comparative method

and internal reconstruction can take us back only about 5,000 years, and they work only if there are closely related languages available. If a language has no documented "relatives," it's much harder.

[Igel]

3. Unless you like folks like Ivanov or Ruhlen.

It's clear that some segments are less prone to change than others. That's a two-edged sword, of course.

After 5-6k years BP you wind up with roots that are far too small to be useful. Written records allow us to push some aspects of PIE further back--we start not at 2000 AD but at 500-300 BC.

Some of the data are squirrelly for the "greatest diversity" argument. H. Andersen showed very nicely that you can get truly bizarre phonological developments in isolated areas in his article on Burgen Romansch and that this kind of development can occur relatively quickly. (People really should read Andersen more: He's malicious and petty, but brilliant.)

It's also true that the greatest linguistic diversity occurs in areas where a language has been long established.

So they found the area of greatest diversity, but it was a place in which nature provided very great levels of isolation and made the movement of peoples fairly unlikely. Gee, how to separate out the two principles?

Well, the diversity = age argument is certainly true for language groups and families we observe. Is it true if you go back more than the current language groups and families we observe now have existed? Dunno. Our current language families all date to after the introduction of widespread herding (in which languages cover large areas) and agricultural (which usually gives rise to governments that cover large areas). An added confound is that in such circumstances when you assimilate a population you have a large population with ties back to their original kin groups to provide linguistic stability and help prevent creolization and really extensive substrate phenomenon. It's usually the assimilation of a lower-prestige group by a higher-prestige group.

If you go to places like New Guinea or the Amazon you wind up with problems in phylogeny. There's little migration; intermarrying is local and with clear rules. Conquering usually involved genocide, and was only a really local phenomenon. You have lots of little languages and trying to relate them to each other continues to be a problem. We know that the rates of language change are not consistent in all settings but have nice averages based on languages like Romance or Georgian, Indic or even Slavic. But we haven't been able to get a grip on the rates of language change in many areas because we lack data and pace Andersen there's little reason to think that in extreme isolation the rates are going to be the same as with Italan to French or Old Georgian to modern Georgian.

(Full disclosure: I studied with Andersen and Ivanov.)

[littlemissmartypants]

4. I am leaning toward less emphasis on the spoken word geography notion.

I lean more toward a gestural system which possibly paralleled or was a precursor to spoken language. I make this speculation based on my knowledge of neuroanatomy and the proximity of the areas for the arms and hands to those for the lips, tongue and larynx. I think the more we gestured, made faces and even drew pictures to communicate the more the adjacent areas of the brain became engaged. I also suspect the first words were in response to pain and/or basic body actions like thoracic fixation for poopin' and having babies and could have been almost reflexive. Like when you slam a finger in a door and curse. I also believe the laugh played a part in the development of spoken words and perception of humor is regarded as a function of the frontal lobe and as a higher cognitive function. Then when these sounds began to emerge there were communication break downs that occurred this leading not only to more laughter but to attempts to correct miscommunication which lead to changes in facial expression and vocalizations which emerged as "words" from pairing sounds and actions. I believe this was not a cause effect determination but as the result of a continuous feedback loop.

http://mva.me/educational/brain_areas.html