How Language Began

How Language Began by Daniel Everett

How Language Began is an excellent exposition of the possible manner in which language originated. Many linguists believe that the explosion of symbolic art and other artifacts, traced to times between 40,000 and 100,000 years ago, signaled the rise of language. The author of How Language Began, Daniel Everett, contrary to this hypothesis, situates the origin of language some 2 million years earlier, in the time of Homo erectus.
He argues that Homo erectus had tools, sailed to far lands, had symbolic thought, and what he calls G1 language. He divides language into the usual categories of linguistics: semantics, the study of meaning; syntax, pragmatics, phonology, discourse conversational principles, and information and gestures; though he stresses that the study of the whole is always more than that of the parts. Language is a gestalt, says Everett, and not innate but an invention. He stipulates that language must always be studied in the context of the culture in which it is used and spends time outlining the mountain of unspoken knowledge that is implicit in any conversation.
He follows Charles Peirce in his study of signs, dividing them into iconic use, indexical use, and finally, symbolic use. Interestingly, however, he departs from Peirce in believing that indexical use is more basic than iconic. Indexical signs are those that generally occur together, like tracks and the creatures that made them, or smoke and fire.
Following Deacon’s study, I believe he is incorrect here. Iconicity, as outlined by Peirce and expanded by Deacon, is the basic way that we humans, and other animals, categorize. Iconicity is based upon resemblance, the discussion of which Everett limits mainly to man-made artifacts or coincidence. He hardly mentions categorization at all, though it is the way that all organisms classify food, objects, and threats to survive in their environments. Categorizing a bear as a bear because you have seen one before, and are familiar with how they act, the threat they present, allows you to respond in the best manner, be it fleeing or moving your car. So, in my opinion, categorization comes before learning by association, as with indexical signs. Actually, the indexical elements are usually recognized because they resemble (are iconic) to those seen prior.
And although the divisions of language are classic divisions of linguistic study, my personal opinion is that meaning is the most important aspect of that study, and that it underlies all of the other aspects. We study them because they shed light in one way or another upon the meaning of our utterances.
Everett mounts a convincing argument that language did not develop from gesture, as full-blown sign language would likely have hindered the development of speech. Why develop competing speech if sign language already works for you? But my belief is that gesture probably was very important to Homo erectus, and preceded speech, with speech possibly coming much later.
Everett thinks that tool use and marine navigation indicate the presence of symbolic thought. They certainly could, but objects in the environment can and do have meaning for most creatures without involving symbolic thought. Tools certainly do have meaning for those who make and use them. They likely do bring hunting and other associations to mind.
But is that truly symbolic thought in the systemic sense necessary for language?
Perhaps it is, as outlined by Everett, but not necessarily in the sense used by Deacon in his exposition of Peirce’s icon, index, and symbol. For Deacon believes, (and so do I), the symbolic process in language involves symbolic takeoff, in which relationships are developed between the symbols in use, over and beyond the indexical relationships which first bind them. This is not an isolated change but a systemic change in thought and language. These relationships between the symbols themselves lead from mere indexical relationships to abstract thought. (Bananas, berries, meat, are food. Water and coconut juice are drinks.) Although isolated incidents of symbolic meaning would certainly be a start to this process.
Everett gives the example of mistaking a root for a snake and then having the root become symbolic of the concept of snake. This type of symbolic thought, I think, is quite possible without achieving a complete symbol system such as language, though we lack much artifact evidence that it existed in early Homo erectus either.
So, I would think that the grammar of G1, which Everett postulates as the first real language, could have been, and probably was, not truly symbolic at all, in that sense, but more indexical at first, from associations of words, objects, and events. This would be similar to opinions about the lack of full-blown symbol use by the great apes and others that have been studied. Although they have been trained to recognize symbols and make simple statements, they do not seem to fully grasp symbolic relationships or grammar.
The real question is: How long ago did symbolic takeoff happen for humans?
If you accept that it is possible to have language of sorts without full-blown symbolic takeoff, then both Everett and those who postulate that symbolic takeoff was responsible for more abstract thought and artistic representation, almost 2 million years later, could be correct.
I thought the sections on the anatomy necessary for speech, pragmatics, and especially the idea that linguistic utterances are always made in the context of a particular culture, with all the implicit, unspoken knowledge that entails, were insightful and valid. Everett offers compelling, if not completely convincing, arguments that language began with Homo erectus 2 million years ago, and a wealth of information about other aspects of language and culture. His field studies of the Pirahã and others give him perspective and insight others may lack.
Edward O. Wilson, perhaps the most respected sociobiologist of our time, has stated this book will become a classic. And I should say, with all of my caveats and quibbles offered for consideration above, from my perspective as an amateur student of language and mind that I humbly agree. This brief outline of topics covered does not do the book justice. How Language Began is an erudite, well-written, groundbreaking addition to my personal research and library.