Study: Neandertal Speech and Language Abilities Like Modern Humans

Science Daily has a story on Neandertal speech.  Work by Dan Didiu and Stephen Levinson suggests that Neandertals and modern humans share a common ancestry with regard to the use of language.  Science Daily writes:

Dediu and Levinson review all these strands of literature and argue that essentially modern language and speech are an ancient feature of our lineage dating back at least to the most recent ancestor we shared with the Neandertals and the Denisovans (another form of humanity known mostly from their genome). Their interpretation of the intrinsically ambiguous and scant evidence goes against the scenario usually assumed by most language scientists, namely that of a sudden and recent emergence of modernity, presumably due to a single -- or very few -- genetic mutations. This pushes back the origins of modern language by a factor of 10 from the often-cited 50 or so thousand years, to around a million years ago -- somewhere between the origins of our genus, Homo, some 1.8 million years ago, and the emergence of Homo heidelbergensis. This reassessment of the evidence goes against a saltationist scenario where a single catastrophic mutation in a single individual would suddenly give rise to language, and suggests that a gradual accumulation of biological and cultural innovations is much more plausible..

I am still a bit “iffy” on the whole “common ancestor of modern humans and Neandertals” thing since some are trying to argue for a common ancestor based on the material from the Gran Dolina, in Spain, and it sure as all get out looks like modern humans originated in Northeast Africa at, or near, Herto. I have a tendency to think that there was a good deal of panmixia throughout Europe and north Africa.  Otherwise, we are required to believe that there was a species split at H. antecessor into what became modern humans (how'd they get to north Africa?) on one side and Neandertals on the other and that, some 700 to 720 thousand years later, emerging moderns and Neandertals encountered one another and interbred.  That is overly simplistic, I am sure but it seems far-fetched.  It seems easier to argue that the H. antecessor material represents an archaic Homo sapiens population that was the precursor (or something like it was) to later archaics, such as Petralona and Atapuerca, out of which Neandertals came.  Then the Neandertals interbred with the north-moving moderns and somewhere in there, the Denisova population split off.  The panmixia in Europe, western Asia and Russia explains why moderns have both Neandertal and Denisovan genes, along with the modern genes that originated in North Africa.  Subsequent swamping of the archaic genome led to the demise of both the Neandertals and Denisovans.   

Language Origin Not in Africa?

Science Daily is reporting a story that follows up on a story from last year in which it was posited that Africa was the birthplace of language. They write:

In the beginning was the word -- yes, but where exactly? Last year, Quentin Atkinson, a cultural anthropologist at Auckland University in New Zealand, proposed that the cradle of language could be localized in the southwest of Africa. The report, which appeared in Science, was seized upon by the media and caused something of a sensation. Now however, LMU linguist Michael Cysouw has published a commentary in Science which argues that this neat “Out-of-Africa” hypothesis for the origin of language is not adequately supported by the data presented. The search for the site of origin of language remains very much alive.

Cysouw argues that the methods that Atkinson used, borrowed from population genetics, are not directly applicable to linguistics research. He argues that language origins can only be traced back around 1o,ooo years.

----------------
Now playing: Renaissance - Mother Russia
via FoxyTunes

The Evolution of Turn-Taking

ScienceDaily has a story on research done at the University of Leicester on the evolution of turn-taking. How this happened is far from clear:

Professor Andrew Colman and Dr Lindsay Browning carried out the study due to appear in the September issue of the journal Evolutionary Ecology Research. The study has helped to explain the evolution of cooperative turn-taking.

Professor Colman said: “In human groups, turn-taking is usually planned and coordinated with the help of language. For example, people living together often agree to take turns washing up the dishes after meals or taking their children to school. But turn-taking has also evolved in many other species without language or the capacity to reach negotiated agreements. These include apes, monkeys, birds, and antelopes that take turns grooming each other, and mating pairs of Antarctic penguins that take turns foraging at sea while their partners incubate eggs or tend to chicks.

But how it evolved in the animal world is, according to these researchers, another matter:

Using evolutionary game theory and computer simulations, Professor Colman and Dr Browning discovered a simple variation of “tit for tat” that explains how turn-taking can evolve in organisms that pursue their individual self-interests robotically.

The researchers state: “Turn-taking is initiated only after a species has evolved at least two genetically different types that behave differently in initial, uncoordinated interactions with others. Then as soon as a pair coordinates by chance, they instinctively begin to play ‘tit for tat’. This locks them into mutually beneficial coordinated turn-taking indefinitely. Without genetic diversity, turn-taking cannot evolve in this simple way.

I find this a bit fuzzy and it is easy to see how a group like the Discovery Institute would pounce on it and say that this behavior is part of design in nature. They might argue that evolutionary explanations are arbitrary because the researchers approach the problem from an evolutionary perspective only, especially when it is described as an evolutionary "invisible hand" that is behind the turn-taking behavior.


----------------
Now playing: Alan Parsons - The Time Machine (Part 1)
via FoxyTunes