Language and Archaeology
(1.a) Comparison between the complexity of communication systems and cognitive complexity inferred from archaeological findings
Speech does not fossilize but the interpretation of artefacts obtained from archaeological sites can be used to infer the degree of complexity of the communication system necessary to produce these artefacts and sometimes their associated behaviour. The degree of complexity of tool technology is often used as a marker for the level of cognitive ability but it is difficult to extrapolate the need of a sophisticated system of communication from tool technology alone. One reason is that the ability to manufacture complex tools can be learned from observation and imitation without explicit tutoring requiring the use of language. Intentional burials and sea faring are activities that appear to require a greater reliance on linguistic communication for the purpose of enacting rituals and solving problems. The dates and the intentionality of some of the oldest burial sites are still controversial. Further studies are needed to clarify these controversies because these dates may point to the earliest traces of our ancestor's full-fledged language. Similarly sea faring from the Asian continent to Australia more than 60.000 years ago is difficult to imagine without an extremely efficient communication system. If the presence of anatomically modern humans in Australia is confirmed at 60.000 years BP, it will strongly suggest that language was already fully operational by then.
(1.b) Comparison between linguistic and archaeological data for periods between 15,000 and 5,000 BP (especially in the Indo-European domain)
The term ‘Indo-European’ may refer to a proto-language reconstructed from its modern descendants (and from written documents) as well as a culture inferred from written sources and archaeological studies. The association between the proto-Indo-European language and culture has been hotly debated. The nature of the diaspora of the proto-Indo-European language and culture is also controversial. The interface between language and culture, which is a dynamic process, should be studied with great care. Historical linguists have proposed various possibilities for the ancestor of the proto-Indo-European language (Eurasiatic vs. Nostratic families). This time window (5-15.000 BP) at the upper boundary of possible contributions from linguistic data to the reconstruction of our past seems to be perfectly adequate for interactions between historical linguists and archaeologists working on Indo-European languages and cultures. Similar collaborations for the same time period for other geographical zones should also be encouraged.
(1.c) Evaluation of Neanderthal communication system and cognitive abilities
The proximity between Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans has been debated since the discovery of the first Neanderthal fossils. At first, the Neanderthals were classified as our direct ancestors with limited cognitive abilities. The current view is that the Neanderthals belong to a genetic branch, which separated from the human lineage some 500.000 years ago. Recent studies have also shown that Neanderthals had greater cognitive abilities than previously thought (more complex tool technology, more sophisticated hunting techniques). Were these new cognitive accomplishments the results of contacts with groups of anatomically modern humans or were they Neanderthal innovations? The two theories are currently under discussion and evaluation. If Neanderthals were able to exhibit complex behaviours, what was the nature of their communication system? Contrary to what has been accepted since the 70's, their peripheral speech production system was probably not very different from ours. It has been suggested on the basis of a Neanderthal hyoid bone found at the Kebara site (Israel) that the position of their larynx did not prevent them from having a large enough set of articulated sounds necessary for speech. The synthesis of data evaluating Neanderthal's cognitive and speech abilities should allow us to understand why our closest relatives disappeared some 30.000 years ago.
Language and Brain
(2.a) Evolution of cortical regions involved in language production and perception
It has been claimed that language is innate. Such a claim needs to be clarified and bolstered by empirical facts: what aspect of language is innate? Since when? What type of genetic basis and mutation does such a claim imply?
A distinct and contrastive point of view considers that our language abilities resulted from the adaptation of pre-existing cognitive abilities. For instance, our tremendously efficient system for coding and decoding of speech requires extremely fine tuned control of serial neuromuscular events. Several possibilities have been proposed as the original source for such a system: hand gestures but also mouth and jaw movements. Recent brain imaging techniques on human and non-human primates can shed new lights on these hypotheses.
(2.b) Study of the neurophysiology of mimesis and its role in the emergence of the language faculty
Compared to other species, including non-human primates, humans have a much greater capacity to learn new skills by imitation and practice (e.g. throwing skills). This ability may have played a determinant role in the development of motor skills necessary for refining intentional vocalisation. An interesting neurophysiological link between perception and action (and consequently with the possibility of mimesis) has recently been observed by researchers who have identified the so-called "mirror neurons". These visuomotor neurons were first identified in the monkey’s premotor cortex; the same neurons discharge when the monkey executes a "grasping" task or when the monkey sees another individual performing the same action. This discovery provides an insight on the transmission of a new communicative behaviour among members of the same species. It enables us to understand how an innovative and adaptive behaviour of serendipitous origin may be transmitted from generation to generation and evolve into a complex system. Here also brain imaging techniques will be useful to develop this line of investigation.
Language and Genes
Comparison between genetic classification of today’s world populations and language families.
Genetic data from modern populations have been used to provide dates for the emergence of anatomically modern humans and to locate their continent of origin. They have also been used to infer information concerning more recent populations movements (e. g. Austronesian populations). Depending on the type of analysis performed, results do not always converge (see for instance analyses based on mitochondrial DNA vs. nuclear DNA). Reasons for divergence are currently under scrutiny. On the basis of linguistic data collected from modern languages it is possible to reconstruct earlier groupings of currently spoken languages into language families and thus infer population movements associated with these language groupings. Unfortunately, traditional methods of historical linguistics are limited to a time depth of less than 10.000 years. Other methods have been proposed but they remain controversial. A number of researchers in historical linguistics consider that the time has come to develop new methodologies for establishing linguistic groupings at a time depth of 10.000 years and beyond. Such methodologies will incorporate accumulated knowledge of linguistic change as well as statistical techniques developed in other fields (especially in biology). In the coming years we need to refine the seminal work of Cavalli-Sforza and his colleagues on the correlation between linguistic and genetic groupings. It will be particularly important to adapt the type of genetic markers and the size of the sample population to the time-depth of the language group under consideration. Progress in this area will depend on close collaboration between historical linguists and geneticists.
Language Acquisition and Language Universals
(4.a) Comparison between processes involved in language acquisition vs. language emergence/evolution
It has been shown that the "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" position is an oversimplification of evolutionary processes. However these ontogenetic studies are not necessarily irrelevant to the understanding of evolutionary processes. In the case of language origin, apart from rare exceptions, researchers have been reluctant to extrapolate results from language acquisition of children to infer possible evolutionary scenario of language origin. If we keep in mind the different contexts of language acquisition and language origin (language developing in a linguistically rich environment and a rapidly developing brain in the case of language acquisition by children as opposed to a poor or non-existent linguistic context and a slowly evolving brain) we may profit from the large number of studies on language acquisition carried out over the last few decades in our effort to understand language origin.
(4.b) Language universals and brain architecture (and processes)
Since the 60' large scale surveys of typological features of the world's languages have progressively shown that a wide variety of linguistic systems contains general "patterns" or general tendencies (often called "language universals"). These surveys have not been as thorough for all aspects of linguistic systems mostly because of the limitations of available data. They are more detailed and firmly grounded in a large number of languages when they concern sound systems; they are more limited when dealing with syntactic aspects and rare in the semantic domain. These studies should be continued in at least two directions. First, we need to compare the results of synchronic studies with surveys of diachronic processes; surveys based on synchronic data can only provide information on what the most common patterns in the world's languages are. They do explain how the linguistic system evolves from one stable state to another. Second, if recurrent linguistic patterns are observed in languages distant in time and space, they cannot be explained by linguistic inheritance from a parent language or by language contacts. A possible explanation for them may lie in general cognitive constraints inherent in the coding and decoding phases of human communication (e.g. speed of processing, memory capacity…). An interesting source of data for the understanding of language contact and the role of cognitive constraints on the assimilation of a new linguistic system is the study of the emergence and development of Creole languages.
Language and Animal Communication
Language is often used as a central distinctive feature of our species. Consequently, it is crucial to be able to provide a detailed account of the emergence of this specific behaviour. Is it just a system comparable but different from other animal communication systems or does it constitute a radically different way of communicating with other members of one’s own species? A fast growing literature on animal communication clearly indicates that animals are capable of communicating information and exhibiting behaviour far more complex than previously thought. In this context, it is important to re-evaluate what specific features characterise human communication vs. animal communication.
Language Evolution and Computer Modelling
Computer modelling has been used quite extensively in recent years to simulate the evolution of the human vocal tract, the emergence of sound systems, of the lexicon and of syntax. It is obvious that these new tools allow researchers to test hypotheses concerning the emergence of language and their development should be encouraged by our program. We also strongly believe that computer modelling studies investigating the following questions should also be engaged.
(6.a) Social impetus for the emergence of language
Language is a communicative system fundamentally dependent on the social context in which it operates. Individuals use language to disseminate and receive information for survival but also for establishing social networks. As social groups enlarged in the course of evolution, our hominid ancestors needed a more efficient tool of communication in order to establish and maintain social bounds. This need is one of the forces driving the evolution of hominid communicative behaviour towards the ultimate goal of language.
(6.b) Use of self-organisation concepts in the study of language evolution
The notion of self-organisation in complex systems was first applied to the field of biology. Recently it has been found to be relevant to linguistic issues such as the emergence of sound systems and the stabilisation of certain linguistic structures. Hence free and natural order in the form of self-organisation without a preordained master plan can emerge in a complex system whether the system consists of behaviours or entities. Some encouraging results have been obtained for predicting sound systems in the evolution of communicative behaviours of our hominid ancestors. This line of research should be encouraged and extended to other levels of linguistic structures.
(6.c) Polygenesis vs. monogenesis of language origin
Because the origin of language marks the beginning of human civilisation, the general assumption is that it occurred only once in hominid evolution. This is the theme of the monogenesis of language. From this point of view, the origin of language co-occurred with the emergence of anatomically modern humans in Africa. However the theory of monogenesis is not without controversy, it is possible that language, as we know it to-day, might have emerged after the first modern humans left Africa over 100.000 years ago. In this case the polygenesis of language would be a real possibility. At this juncture the issue of monogenesis vs. polygenesis is not resolved; research effort on this question is of great significance to our understanding of language origin and human evolution.
(6.d) Evaluation of population size between 100.000 years and 10.000 years ago
The mechanisms of language diversification and linguistic contacts are strongly influenced by the number of individuals in a given linguistic community, the number of linguistic groups at a given point in time, and the spatial displacements of populations. These population movements are to a great extent conditioned by climatic conditions. Data on group size and overall population during all periods of hominid evolution are crucial to research on the origin of language. Dunbar has focused on the role of group size for the emergence of articulated language when earlier forms of communication (still used to a large extent in non-human primates) became inadequate for maintaining social relationships in hominids. The importance of overall population size is also crucial for the understanding and the interpretation of results presented by Cavalli-Sforza and his colleagues who compared classifications based on genetic markers with linguistic classifications based on modern languages. A good correlation between these two types of classification is easier to understand if the total population is small and the different human groups are widely separated. Under such conditions, penetration of new habitat through migration will result in the creation of a new gene pool and a new language community. Data on prehistoric population size can be extrapolated from population densities of current hunter-gatherer groups, evaluation of resource potentials of inhabited zones at a given point in time, evaluation of population density in archaeological sites and more recently from estimates based on molecular genetic studies. Furthermore, studies devoted to the evaluation of the number of speech communities and their relative localizations at different periods would be very useful to improve our understanding of the nature of language contacts.
Text of the original research programme submitted to ESF by Professor Jean-Marie Hombert, University of Lyon 2, France.
The text of the project is published as approved by the provisional Management Committee of the programme, formed by representatives from ESF Member Organisations which participated in the preliminary phases of the launching of the programme.
