How language evolved ?

1. Animals and Human language
Focus of the George Yule
In the start of chapter focus was on the ways in which human language is distinct or
different from animal language .
Language is basically human trait or universal .
Allah Almighty taught Adam how to speak .
So we can say it is species specific.
The question of language in use was considered most important .following properties of
human language have been argued to separate it from animal communication:
 Arbitrariness: there is (usually) no rational relationship between a sound or sign
and its meaning (e.g. there is nothing intrinsically "housy" about the word "house").
 Discreteness: language is composed of small, repeatable parts (discrete units) that
are used in combination to create meaning.
 Displacement: languages can be used to communicate ideas about things that are
not in the immediate vicinity either spatially or temporally.
 Duality of patterning: the smallest meaningful units (words, morphemes) consist
of sequences of units without meaning. This is also referred to as double articulation.
 Productivity: users can understand and create an indefinitely large number of
utterances.
 Semanticity: specific signals have specific meanings.[
Agreement on the question that non –humans can not understand human language
There is a lot of language directed by humans to animals
For example Riders say Whoa to horses and they stop
In circus rings , a variety of animals go up and down and Roll over in accordance with
spoken commands
As far as animals behavior is concerned they produce a particular behavior in response to
particular sound stimulus
Many researchers argue that animal communication lacks a key aspect of human
language, that is, the creation of new patterns of signs under varied circumstances. (In
contrast, for example, humans routinely produce entirely new combinations of words.)
Some researchers, including the linguist Charles Hockett, argue that human language and
animal communication differ so much that the underlying principles are unrelated.
Accordingly, linguist Thomas A. Sebeok has proposed to not use the term "language" for

2. animal sign systems.Marc Hauser, Noam Chomsky, and W. Tecumseh Fitchassert an
evolutionary continuum exists between the communication methods of animal and human
language.
If animals don’t understand human language then they can not produce it
Animals use various calls , sounds , in case of danger , hunger , but these can not be
considered as language .
Meaningful utterance and proper conversational ability is lacking among animals as
compared to human beings.
Chimpanzees have 99% of it basic genetics in common with the human beings.
Animals communicate by using a variety of signs such as sounds or movements. Such
signing may be considered complex enough to be called a form of language if the
inventory of signs is large, the signs are relatively arbitrary, and the animals seem to
produce them with a degree of volition (as opposed to relatively automatic conditioned
behaviors or unconditioned instincts, usually including facial expressions). In
experimental tests, animal communication may also be evidenced through the use of
lexigrams (as used by chimpanzees and bonobos). While the term "animal language" is
widely used, researchers agree that animal languages are not as complex or expressive as
human language.
Sceptics consider it simpler to assume that humans are unique, and that the burden of
proof should be borne by anyone who thinks otherwise. Any claim of language-like
elements for animals is considered a more complicated hypothesis, to be dismissed as
unnecessary in the absence of positive proof. Yet the alternative hypotheses by which the
sceptics instead attempt to explain animal behaviour sometimes strike me as more
complicated than the simple, and often plausible, explanation that humans are not unique.
(Jared Diamond 1991:130) Humans still have the old innate call system, existing
alongside language. Sounds like laughter and screams are controlled by the older neural
(subcortical) structures in the brain, which are also responsible for the call systems of
other species. Some non-human species appear to have a system of sounds which involve
learning and experience, existing alongside the innate call

3. Various experiments on Chimpanzees and Gorillas to train them to speak language
In the course of history chimpanzees apes and gorillas were used in various research
studies in order to find out that either they can speak or not like human beings.
Examples;
Gua , a chimpanzee was reported act on human vocal instruction but could not produce
single word.
Viki , a chimpanzee reared by scientists ( Catherine and Keth Hayes in 1940s) for 5 years
Was able to produce poorly articulated versions of mamma, papa, and cup failed to speak
proper language
It became clear that no-human primates don’t have a physically structured vocal tract like
humans for producing
human speech sounds
Washoe , a chimpanzee whose owners tried to teach him American sign language , she
was able to produce some basic signs
Other experimental examples
Koko , Sarah and Lana , Nim chimpsky , these chimpanzees were taught sign language
and language using various Shapes
In fact they were able to produce these signs and by arranging correct sequence of various
shapes for getting food and water .
Close analysis showed that they were repeating the signs of their trainers as behavior ,
were seemed capable of holding rudimentary conversational ability.
Noam Chomsky concept of language
He claimed that language is an innate ability and unique to human species
Contradicted by experiment on chimpanzee
Nim Chimpsky , who was able to use signs of American sign language ,but latter
contradicted by a researcher , Terrace who conclude that this signing was repetition of
trainers and can not be considered as linguistic behavior
Some linguists (eg Chomsky, 1957, Macphail, 1982, both cited in Pearce, 1987) have
argued that language is a unique human behaviour and that animal communication falls
short of human language in a number of important ways.

4. Chomsky (1957) claims that humans possess an innate universal grammar that is not
possessed by other species. This can be readily demonstrated, he claims, by the
universality of language in human society and by the similarity of their grammars. No
natural non-human system of communication shares this common grammar.
Macphail (1982, cited by Pearce, 1987) made the claim that "humans acquire language
(and non-humans do not) not because humans are (quantitatively) more intelligent, but
because humans possess some species-specific mechanism (or mechanisms) which is a
prerequisite of language-acquisition".
Some researchers have provided lists of what they consider to be the criteria that animal
communication must meet to be regarded as language.
For this lecture the list devised by Hockett (1960) is utilised, although this list is not the
only such list available. Such lists tend to be quite similar and certain elements of the
Hockett list are considered particularly important in evaluating the question "can animals
be taught language?"
Conclusion
By focusing on the above discussed examples it can be concluded that
Animals don’t have language in comparison with human beings
Animals lack physiological human vocal tract and they also lack basic stages of language
acquisition from which human child passes .
Human and non-human communication have been investigated from a great variety of
perspectives within science, and very few disciplines seem to agree on a definition of
language. It is of crucial importance that we know exactly what language is if research in
non-human communication is to be accepted as evidence of linguistic ability. Some
linguists would rather redefine language in order to defend human uniqueness than accept
a linguistic continuity on a biological basis.
This rigid view reflects a long bias and is not getting us anywhere. Many linguists agree
with Chomsky's theory, but the primary function of language is that of communication,
and the biological and social context cannot be ignored. In the search for a plausible
scientific explanation, we should look closely at the non-human systems of social
communication in order to find out whether they share the rules and principles of human
languages, by observing how they are used, how their components are put together, and
how they interrelate with other thing
f we accept a linguistic continuity, language cannot be without some kind of intermediate
stages, and it seems obvious that animal communication has been the precursors of
human speech. The fact that chimpanzees are able to learn a human sign language
indicates that our common ancestor must have had a capacity for this kind of
communication and that nature has built up signed and spoken language on these ancient

5. foundations

6. foundations