INTERMEDIATE STAGES
If language evolved gradually, the theory of natural selection would require someintermediate language systems varying in efficiency. The languages of our humanancestors of millions of years ago would not resemble the languages we speak today.In a less demanding environment they would have had no need for a complexgrammar, and the ability to combine a limited number of sounds in different ways
would be sufficient. Pinker (1995:352) suggests that calls similar to those of the
vervet monkeys may have come under the voluntary control and put together in a
rule-governed way for more complicated information exchange. Presumably, the
vocabulary was not very large, and grunts and gurgles may have been used rather
than modern speech sounds, e.g. chimpanzee pant-hoots, the expressions of
solidarity between male primates, very much like the utterances of human male
sporting teams (Aitchison 1996:66-67). From the early stage of grimaces, gestures,
and sounds, gradually a sophisticated language may have evolved as it turned out to
be a supremely efficient means of communication.
Bickerton (1990:122-126) argues that there is a primitive variety of language, a
protolanguage, existing alongside fully developed language (e.g. the language of
signing apes, children under two, language acquired by wild children after the
critical period, and pidgin). He assumes that this primitive variety evolved first and
that humans are prewired at birth with a kind of creole that can develop by later
experience.
Pidgin and creole are based on existing languages, but they are similar all over the
world, showing how a simple system may develop (Aitchison 1996:11). Pidgin
languages are based on nouns, verbs, and adjectives, they are simplified in sounds,
vocabulary, and syntax, and characterized by short rule-governed constructions of
words. Pidgin utterances are like big true, me no lie meaning it is absolutely true,
I am not lying (Bickerton 1990:118-122). When pidgin takes over as a native tongue
it develops into creole.
CONCLUSION
Human and non-human communication have been investigated from a great varietyof perspectives within science, and very few disciplines seem to agree on adefinition of language. It is of crucial importance that we know exactly whatlanguage is if research in non-human communication is to be accepted as evidenceof 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 Chomskys 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 things.
If 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 foundations. The question whether non-human species in a state of
nature have developed a kind of communication similar to that of humans remain
open. The communication of the wild animals who would be most likely to use
grammar have not yet been investigated. When deriving our information from
laboratory experiments and observations of animals in captivity, we cannot equate
our results with what can be observed of animals living free in the wild. The reports
on apes in captivity show that trained apes to some extent are capable of acquiring
human language, but human children would probably find it just as difficult to
acquire any system of primate-communication if they were removed from their
natural environment and exposed to any such experiments controlled by members of
other species.
The maturation of certain language centres in the brain could explain why syntax
seems to be absent in the utterances of two-year-old children and trained apes.
Apparently, the brains of chimpanzees do not lack the structures necessary for
language development, but they may lack the structures resposible for syntax. It
seems that their brains reach a fully developed stage when they are similar to those
of very young children. Naturally, chimpanzees are not capable of mastering a
language that has taken us centuries to develop. However, no experiments have
involved adult chimpanzees as they grow too big to handle, e.g. Washoe received no
further training after the age of four and may not have reached the limit of her
abilities.
Within an evolutionary perspective, it seems a plausible scientific explanation that
the language of trained apes represents an early stage of language development, a
protolanguage similar to that of very young children and speakers of pidgins.
Conclusively, we may regard human language as a further development of
communication systems also found among other species rather than being
uniquely human.
