Barton 1

On the Origins of Language

An essay examining the beginnings of language based on living sources

Language is an essential tool for humans. Some have said that it is what separates us

from animals. But, where did language come from? Here it may have been better to use

‘however’ instead of ‘but’.By examining living languages and the people who speak them, is it

possible to piece together the origins of language? Overall, a decent introduction paragraph but

it’s better to make your thesis a statement rather than a question—it may have been better here to

say something along the lines of “this essay will examine both living languages and the people

who speak them to determine if it is possible to piece together the origins of language.

It is clear that many languages today are related. Languages are classified into groups

known as families. For instance, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, French, Romanian, and Catalan all

belong to the Romance family. English, German, Dutch, and others ‘and others’ isn’t bad

phrasing but it leaves people wanting more, maybe say ‘are a few belonging.’ belong to the

Germanic family. These families, then, are descendents descendants of proto-languages. Most

European languages, as well as several languages outside of Europe, are descendants of Proto-

Indo-European. Other proto-languages include Proto-Algonquian, Proto-Dravidian, and Proto-

Oto-Manguean. (Levine and Rowe 340-342). Linguist Gretchen McCulloch writes that there are

around fifty proto-languages that linguists have been able to, at least partially, reconstruct

(McCulloch).

How are these languages able to be reconstructed? Try to avoid questions in academic

papers but a good transition between paragraphs Linguists use something called the

“comparative method” in order to figure out how proto languages may have sounded. In order to

use the method what method? Simple fix is ‘use this method’ rather than ‘the’, a linguist looks at

two languages that are believed to come from a common ancestor. They then take words with
 Barton 2

similar meanings, (i.e. father, foot, and far in English and pater, podos, and per in Greek) and

look at how the sounds are similar and different between the two words. For instance, in the

example given above, the ‘p’ in the Greek words was changed to an ‘f’ in the English ones, but

the words are otherwise very similar. This would seem to indicate that these words are, indeed,

related, and that a series of slight evolution of sounds led to the diversification of language

(Evans and Bowern 127-128). Good breakdown and explanation.

Unfortunately, the comparative method can only go so far. The ability to reconstruct

proto languages does tend to lend credence to the idea that language does have a solitary origin,

but it does not provide either an ancestor to those proto languages, or a reason for language to

have arisen in the first place. Many theories have been put forward to explain this gap. Dr. Derek

Bickerton proposed in his 1981 work, Roots of Language, that there is a “bioprogram” inside of

humans that dictates how languages are built (Anshen).

This theory is based on a creole language found in Hawaii. A “creole” is a language that

arises when a pidgin is spoken for an extended period of time in a specific region. A “pidgin” is a

sort of quasi-language that is used between people who don’t share a common language. These

people will improvise a language based on what they can make understood between them. Over

time, the rules of the pidgin become solidified, sometimes becoming the native language for the

next generation. Thus, a creole is born.

Bickerton noted that, although the grammar and word order amongst the pidgins which

preceded the creole were somewhat loose and random depending on the specific first language of

the speakers, by the time the creole had developed, the grammar had become set. Bickerton also

looked at creoles which had been formed in the Caribbean. These creoles were very similar to
 Barton 3

the Hawaiian one which he had been studying. This similarity is what led Bickerton to his

bioprogram theory (Anshen).

Of course, not all linguists are on Bickerton’s side. Creolist Bill Stewart has said that

Bickerton understated the influence of other creoles on the Hawaiian Creole, which, if true,

would weaken Bickerton’s claim of genetic programming. Maybe expand more on how other

creoles had influence on the Hawaiian one.

Bickerton’s theory is reminiscent of the work of perhaps the most famous linguist of all

time, Noam Chomsky, with a subtle but important distinction which will be discussed later.

Chomsky proposed that the principles of grammar are, to an extent, common to all languages. In

fact, these principles are, as John Lyons put it in his seminal work on Noam Chomsky, Noam

Chomsky, “So specific and so highly articulated that they must be regarded as being biologically

determined.” In other words, grammar is hereditary (Lyons 4). Chomsky points out that, because

only humans have language, barring any theological origin, it must have come from some

evolutionary adaptation, “Likely a single mutation in a single humanoid who gained from

language a capacity for complex and context-independent thought and transmitted this to

progeny,” as James McGilvray said in his book, Chomsky: Language, Mind and Politics.

(McGilvray 2). This mutation might have resulted in Bickerton’s bioprogram.

Bickerton’s theories belong to a class of theories known as the “continuity approach,”

which says that, since language is so big and complicated, there is no way that it simply sprung

forth fully formed, like Athena from the head of Zeus. “Just as we cannot conceive of the eye

jumping into existence, so we cannot conceive of language as having no precursors,” as it was

said in Approaches to the Evolution of Language: Social and Cognitive Bases (Hurford et al. 30).

The alternative approach, followed by Chomsky, is creatively called the “discontinuity

 Barton 4

approach.” This approach has been defined above, and will be restated here: because only

humans have language, barring any theological origin, it must have come from… “likely a single

mutation in a single humanoid who gained from language a capacity for complex and context-

independent thought and transmitted this to progeny.” It is here where the difference between

Bickerton and Chomsky is made apparent. Bickerton’s proposed bioprogram would have

evolved over a very long period of time, whereas Chomsky proposes one big step. This

paragraph is a little messy, almost feels repetitive, but overall not bad.

Although most linguists today are continuists, Chomsky is not the only proponent of a

discontinuity theory. There is another discontinuity theory known as culturalism. Culturalists

argue that language arose from humans creating a culture where language would be useful, and

thus language was created. In other words, the ‘mutation’ that discontinuity theory requires

would be a societal, rather than biological one. Nonetheless, language was still created in one

step, therefore culturalism is discontinuous.

Another origin theory, called “behaviorism” focuses on other great apes. The theory

states that any ape capable of learning can acquire language. This was supported by some

experiments in the 1970s and ‘80s where some apes were taught sign language. However, this

theory has largely fallen out of favor (Hurford et al. 31). This theory could have been expanded

on a bit more—maybe talk about why it fell out of favor.

One theory, put forth by U.T. Place, suggests that spoken language evolved from a stage

of gesture-language. Place has twelve pieces of evidence for this, which are summarized as

follows: 1) other species have vocal apparatuses, but have not developed speech, therefore a

good vocal apparatus is not sufficient. 2) People tend to move their hands and arms around when

they talk. 3) When speech is not available, people inevitably turn to their hands for
 Barton 5

communication. 4) Sign language is relatively easy to learn for deaf people who are brought up

with it, and homemade signs are often created by those who aren’t. 5) The universality of

pointing as a way of referring to an object. 6) Related to point 3, the earliest sentences appear to

have been mostly simply mimed movements. This sentence form returns when speech is

unavailable. 7) Handedness and language are in the same part of the brain. 8) Part of the brain

has evolved to interpret visual linguistic stimuli. Reading and writing are far too recent to have

caused this, therefore this part of the brain must have evolved to interpret gestures. 9) Broca’s

area, the area in the brain dedicated to language, is in the same part of the human brain as area F5

in the monkey brain. Area F5 contains “mirror neurons,” which respond to both making a hand

movement, and watching someone else make the same hand movement. 10) The earliest form of

counting was on the hands. 11) Pointing at objects is very helpful for producing their names. 12)

Miming an action is very helpful for teaching its name (Place).

From here, Place speculates that vocalizations were added to the language of gesture in

order to imitate mating calls, and then once the sounds for specific mating calls were established,

they could be used to refer to that individual without pointing, or even when they were absent

(Place). Place then goes on to lay out a road map of sorts for the evolution of language, but that

is not based on any living evidence, and thus is outside the bounds of this essay.

The final theory that will be discussed here is called “From where to what,” proposed by

Oren Polivia. This theory proposes seven phases of the evolution of language based on two

structures in the brain of both human and non-human primates called the auditory dorsal stream

and auditory ventral stream. The ventral stream is responsible for sound recognition (the what

stream) and the dorsal stream is responsible for sound localization (the where stream). It is only

in Homo sapiens sapiens that these structures are associated with language. The seven phases are
 Barton 6

as follows: 1) Mothers and offspring produce sounds in case they get separated. 2) Those sounds

morph into multiple sounds at different tones to signify different levels of distress. 3) These

tones are used to perform simple question-answer-conversations, i.e., a child gives off a high

tone to request permission to interact with something, the mother gives off the same tone for yes,

or a low tone for no, etc. 4) Improved use of tones allows for unique calls to be associated with

specific objects, leading to phonemes. 5) Children learn new phonemes by imitating lip

movements. 6) Infants become able maybe use ‘develop the ability to’ rather than ‘become able’

to remember all phonemes, and learn to pick up new ones through mimicry, sans lip-reading. 7)

The ability to produce a sequence of phonemes leads to the use of multi-syllabic words, and

eventually to sentences (Polivia).

We may never know exactly how language originally developed. We can create theory

after theory, test innumerable hypotheses, and scan every brain in the world, and the origin of

this most human of traits might still remain a mystery. However, even if we can never know for

sure, it is still astonishing that we can observe people living today and potentially unlock this

secret. It is the search for knowledge that is truly amazing. And in the end, I agree with Sir

Arthur Conan Doyle: “Some believe what separates men from animals is our ability to reason.

Others say it’s language or romantic love, or opposable thumbs. Living here in this lost world,

I’ve come to believe it is more than our biology. What truly makes us human is our unending

search, our abiding desire for immortality.” (Doyle) Try not to end a paper with a quote,

however, I do like what this one adds to the paper—but the best way to end a paper is to

rephrase/answer your thesis.

 Barton 7

A decent paper overall, with a few strengths that sticks out to me the most. The resources

seemed solid and all the points that were brought up were very interesting and related nicely to

the thesis/theme of the paper. The paper had a pretty good flow to it and was easy to understand.

There was a good breakdown of certain topics to make them easier to understand, as well.

However, the syntax and grammar of this paper could have been better in some places,

there weren’t many places where the flow was too disrupted but there were a few improvable

spots. Aside from basic grammar mistakes, there were a few topics I felt could have been

expanded on further that could have added a bit more to the paper. I also feel the introduction

and conclusion could have been a bit stronger to give the paper a little more structure.
 Barton 8

Works Cited

Anshen, Frank. “Creoles Studied as a Key to Languages Origin.” The New York Times,

22 August 1982, p. 20, https://www.nytimes.com/1982/08/22/weekinreview/creoles-

studied-as-a-key-to-languages-origin.html. Accessed 9 April 2022.

Doyle, Arthur Conan. The Lost World. Random House Publishing Group, 2003.

Evans, Bethwyn, and Claire Bowern, editors. The Routledge Handbook of Historical

Linguistics. Taylor & Francis, 2015. Accessed 8 April 2022.

Hurford, James Raymond, et al., editors. Approaches to the Evolution of Language:

Social and Cognitive Bases. Cambridge University Press, 1998. Google Books,

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Approaches_to_the_Evolution_of_Language/

niwRb3j4BHYC?hl=en&gbpv=0. Accessed 9 April 2022.

Levine, Diane P., and Bruce M. Rowe. A Concise Introduction to Linguistics. Taylor &

Francis, 2015. Accessed 8 April 2022.

Lyons, John. Noam Chomsky. Edited by Frank Kermode, Penguin Books, 1978.

McCulloch, Gretchen. “Do All Languages Derive from a Single Common Ancestor?”

Slate, 21 August 2014, https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/08/origin-of-languages-

tower-of-babel-proto-languages-and-the-brothers-grimm.html. Accessed 8 April 2022.

McGilvray, James. Chomsky: Language, Mind and Politics. Wiley, 2014. Google Books,

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Chomsky/wD2TuwYA8-kC?hl=en&gbpv=0.

Accessed 9 April 2022.

Place, Ullin T. “The Role of the Hand in the Evolution of Language.” Psycoloquy, vol.

11, no. 7, 2000, pp. 1-22. utplace.uk, https://utplace.uk/pdf/2000c%20The%20Role%20of

 Barton 9

%20the%20Hand%20in%20the%20Evolution%20of%20Language.pdf. Accessed 9 April

2022.

Polivia, Oren. “From where to what: a neuroanatomically based evolutionary model of

the emergence of speech in humans.” F1000Research, vol. 4, no. 67, 2015. nih.gov,

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5600004/. Accessed 9 April 2022.