NewScientist.com: Bonobos and chimps ‘speak’ with gestures.
Abstract: Human spoken language may have evolved from a currency of hand and arm gestures, not simply through improvements in the basic vocalisations made by primates. This “gesture theory” of language evolution has been given weight by new findings showing that the meaning of a primate’s gesture depends on the context in which it is used, and on what other signals are being given at the same time. Gesture is used more flexibly than vocalised communication in nonhuman primates, the researchers found. A proto-language using a combination of gesture and vocalisation is therefore more likely to have given rise to human language, than simply an improvement in the often involuntary vocalisations that primates make, they say. Amy Pollick and Frans de Waal at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Atlanta, Georgia, US, tested the idea by looking at how strongly gesture and vocal signals are tied to context in our closest primate relatives – chimpanzees and bonobos.
A nice article for those who are not offended by the topic of the origin of language, and especially the theory of the Gestural Origins of Language (as recently put forward most comprehensively by Michael C. Corballis, but there is a long tradition going back to the 18th century).
Although the matter is still largely speculative, many believe that all the ‘evidence’ that is being found in neuroscience, ape-watching, child development, or elsewhere is pointing in the same direction: The path to our modern language capability is easier to imagine going through advancing use of gestures, in combination with vocalisations or facial expressions, then through advancing vocalisations only. Put in that way, I do not think many would disagree. But as I read in Ray Jackendoff’s Foundations of Language the gestural origins theory does not really explain the extent of our language capability.
The truly interesting things in our language capacity are described in terms of our (possible innate) Universal Grammar (Chomsky’s theory that Jackendoff defends and polishes), in the way we use syntax, and all sorts of other formational rules in speech. The ‘language’ of apes, bees, or imagined gestural protolanguages are simply not very interesting in the company of such wondrous human capacities. Which is of course where the ape-watchers by definition disagree.
Essentially, I think both sides of the story simply treat different aspects of language origin. The gestural origins theory is useful to think about the first steps to advanced communication of intentions and meanings in our ape-ancestors. It does not readily explain our current language capacity. But some argue that there is anough evidence through sign language research to go that extra mile.
Shortly before he died, sign language research legend William C. Stokoe wrote a book called Language in Hand: Why Sign Came Before Speech, which is the most comprehensive account of the available knowledge on sign languages that is relevant to the gestural origins of language. Stokoe argues that the first languages must have been sign languages. For details, read the summary or get the book.
Blogs: World-Science – Scientific Blogging – M1K3¥’s Blog – Harvard U. Press – Monkeys in the News – LiveJournal Anthropologist – Auraria – Mr.Verb – NY Times – Language Log (recommended) – BBC – Terra Daily No lack of attention for Frans de Waal and Amy Pollick 🙂
