ohwilleke

Some of the better evidence for a degree of hardwiring is that deaf children starting from scratch isolated from deaf communities tend to develop sign language in ways that share common grammatical elements.

suitsusir

Re the proto-language, it is fairly certain that between seven and nine thousand years ago there was a single Indo-European language (Proto-Indo-European, spoken north of the Black Sea and now extinct), from which most ancient and modern European languages evolved along with several Asian languages.

<a href="http://www.krysstal.com/langfams_indoeuro.html" target="_blank">http://www.krysstal.com/langfams_indoeuro.html</a>
<a href="http://colfa.utsa.edu/drinka/pie/default.htm" target="_blank">http://colfa.utsa.edu/drinka/pie/default.htm</a>

One of the most interesting examples of linguistic evolution for which there is incontrovertible documented proof is to be found in Scandinavia. Their languages show remarkable parallels with Darwinian evolution in biology. Well over 1100 years ago some intrepid Vikings left what is today Norway and settled in Iceland. They spoke old Norse. On their isolated island and with a small population, strong oral and later written tradition (the sagas) the Icelanders' language changed very little whereas the Old Norse spoken by mainland Scandinavians mutated and evolved linguistically and they ended up with three distinct but closely related languages - Norwegian, Swedish and Danish. It is interesting that educated people in Norway, Sweden and Denmark can all communicate fairly well with each other speaking their own languages. When I learnt Swedish many years ago, I had to be able to hold an intelligent conversation with a Swede but also with a Dane or Norwegian to pass the oral exam. However, even though Icelandic has the same common 'ancestor' it is incomprehensible to monolingual Danish, Swedish or Norwegian speakers today and vice versa. The similiarities with Darwinian evolution are obvious. Think of modern Danish and Norwegian as sheep and goats (different species but similar enough to be able to mate and breed 'shoats') and Icelandic as horses (horses and sheep are both four legged mammals and eat grass but they have diverted so much from their common ancestor that they could never crossbreed and produce a 'shorse'). This is an oversimplified analogy but I'm sure you get the point.

quote by leonarde:

"Whether the evolution of languages and the knowledge of it had an influence on Darwin's theory, I couldn't tell you."

Darwin does refer to this very point in Chapter XIV of Origin of the Species - page 562-3 in my Random House edition.

"It may be worth while to ilustrate this view of classification, by taking the case of languages. If we possessed a perfect pedigree of mankind, a genealogical arrangement of the races of man would afford the best classification of the various languages now spoken throughout the world; and if all extinct languages, and all intermediate and slowly changing dialects, were to be included, such an arrangement would be the only possible one. Yet it might be that some ancient languages had altered very little and had given rise to few new languages, whilst others had altered much owing to the spreading, isolation, and state of civilisation of the several co-descended races, and had thus given rise to many new dialects and languages. The various degrees of difference between the languages of the same stock, would have to be expressed by groups subordinate to groups; but the proper or even the whole possible arrangement would still be genealogical; and this would be strictly natural, as it would connect together all languages, extinct and recent, by the closest affinities, and would give the filiation and origin of each tongue."

quote by leonarde:

"in the area of language development there is NO doubt (there really aren't ANY dissenters)that languages evolve..."

Sorry, you're wrong. There ARE dissenters - they're the bible-thumping cretinists who believe in the ludicrous fairy tale of the tower of Babel.

RufusAtticus

Proto-language is not the same as reconstructed language such as Proto-indo-european. Proto-language refers to an ancestral human communication system from which full language evolved from. In other words, proto-language is a transitional state of human communication between animal communication and human language. The historical languages deduced by historical linguistics are still full language and and not proto-lanugage.

For the people studying the evolution of language (not language change), there is much debate as to whether complexities like syntax and grammer are cultural or biological innovations. (I fall into the latter category.) Although the lone genius is a possiblity, it is a not considered much of one.

-RvFvS

suitsusir

quote by RufusAtticus:

"Proto-language is not the same as reconstructed language such as Proto-indo-european."

Apologies for my lazy use of terminology although I know I'm not the only one who perpetrates this solecism.

RufusAtticus:

"there is much debate as to whether complexities like syntax and grammer are cultural or biological innovations. (I fall into the latter category.)"

I'd be interested to hear more from you on this subject and why you lean this way. I'm not an anthropologist or linguistics major so please bear with me. I would argue that non-vocal language at a basic level (gestures such as pointing, snarling) is not a complex response. It is instinctive and does not require vocabulary or grammar. The same goes for primitive vocal language (such as warning screams or mating calls). Instinctive and obvious, so no need for the complex "tools" of language. However, as needs become more complex and specific they require a more complex vocal language and tools. Even at a fairly early stage vocal language is more effective if it uses signs and symbols: so it requires a rudimentary grammar with nouns to identify specific things ("fire", "food", "mother", etc) and verbs at least in the imperative mood to warn others or persuade them to act in specific ways ("go away", "eat", "stay quiet"). Are these still biologically determined? Yes, they certainly are but I also believe there comes a point at which communication is more than a purely biologically determined response because a more complex, culturally acquired set of rules are added involving learned and agreed abstract signs and symbols, ie a vocabularly and grammar, however simple.

Example:
Six month old infant is hungry -&gt; screams = biologically determined
Year old toddler is hungry -&gt; screams PLUS pleads for "chocolate" = biologically PLUS culturally determined

Both the infant and the toddler have an instinctive need for food. The difference between them is that only the latter has a concept of chocolate and - most importantly - can express a specific need for it. At 18 months the toddler will have learned that 'I WANT chocolate' is an even more effective way of expressing its need and obtaining the desired reward.

Would you agree?