“The formation of different languages and of distinct species, and the proofs that both have been developed through a gradual process, are curiously parallel” - Charles Darwin
Academically, one of my research interests is the co-evolution of genes and language. Generally, a simple observation worldwide is people who speak the same language often reproduce with each other (not always necessary but effective communication smooths the process). Based on this general observation one can assume that individuals who share a similar language will share genetic variation (see quote above).
Therefore, I was very interested in this recent feature article (view here) from PLoS Biology entitled "Across the Curious Parallel of Language and Species Evolution" by Whitfield (2008). This paper is historical in nature and starts out with Darwin (I often find if you think of a novel idea, Chucky D. thought it one hundred years ago). In an intersting parrallel I'm also wading through the first half of Janet Browne's lengthy biography, Darwin Voyaging, which is great at understanding the motivation for Darwin's love of natural history and his eventual ascendation to the thrown of biological thought. Into this Whitfield suggest evolutionary analysis will allow for a better understanding of this gene-language correlation. The author then quotes a linguist who argues that linguists may have the best case to study cultural evolution as they have the most amount of data.
Whitfield then continues to take into account similiarites between languages and genomes. First off the most important parts of a language and a genome are highly conservative but then argue that languages make huge jumps. A kind of punctuated equilibrium effect for cultural processes. He then rehashes the arguements for biological processes in brains and if there are underlying genetic correlates with different language types. Then he delves into whether or not there are parralels between culture and biology.
I think my greatest criticisms of this paper is the complete lack of an anthropological perspective (I am of course biased). Anthropology itself has long concerned itself with these questions using an evolutionary perspective. With this in mind there are a number of notable omissions within this paper. Anthropologists have been investigating the relationship between genes and language for the last 40 years at least. The father of American Anthropology, Franz Boaz, mentioned this gene-language relationship in his 1940 book Race, Language, and Culture. Early genetic work on this relationship can be traced to Cavali-Sforza and coleauges who first documented the spread of early agriculturists along with Indo-European languages. Also see Peter Bellwood's book The First Farmers for a worldwide view of this agricultural-gene-language association. In addition the article does not take into account historical linguists such as that by Joseph Greenberg, Merrit Ruhlen, Joanna Nichols, and others work into the evolution of languges.
I realize the statistical tools these individuals are using are new to quantify language differences but they are also controversial. A problem with most papers that equate cultural and biological evolution is that they assume the rate is the same. The majority of linguists believe that the deepest time one can study a language decay rate is 8,000 years. This idea is largely based on glottochronology and Joanna Nichols (1992) suggested an earlier date of around 30,000-40,000 years using a different methodology. The method that Pagel et al. (2007) use indicates a deeper time even. However, humans are a couple hundred thousand years old at best and we don't know exactly when languages show up in evolutionary history. There is good evidence that Neanderthals can speak but could Homo erectus or earlier hominins. There is also a fundamental difference between communication and language - chimps can learn language but in the wild they use elaborate communication systems to talk to each other. Is this language? even if it isn't human language.
Therefore, I was very interested in this recent feature article (view here) from PLoS Biology entitled "Across the Curious Parallel of Language and Species Evolution" by Whitfield (2008). This paper is historical in nature and starts out with Darwin (I often find if you think of a novel idea, Chucky D. thought it one hundred years ago). In an intersting parrallel I'm also wading through the first half of Janet Browne's lengthy biography, Darwin Voyaging, which is great at understanding the motivation for Darwin's love of natural history and his eventual ascendation to the thrown of biological thought. Into this Whitfield suggest evolutionary analysis will allow for a better understanding of this gene-language correlation. The author then quotes a linguist who argues that linguists may have the best case to study cultural evolution as they have the most amount of data.
Whitfield then continues to take into account similiarites between languages and genomes. First off the most important parts of a language and a genome are highly conservative but then argue that languages make huge jumps. A kind of punctuated equilibrium effect for cultural processes. He then rehashes the arguements for biological processes in brains and if there are underlying genetic correlates with different language types. Then he delves into whether or not there are parralels between culture and biology.
I think my greatest criticisms of this paper is the complete lack of an anthropological perspective (I am of course biased). Anthropology itself has long concerned itself with these questions using an evolutionary perspective. With this in mind there are a number of notable omissions within this paper. Anthropologists have been investigating the relationship between genes and language for the last 40 years at least. The father of American Anthropology, Franz Boaz, mentioned this gene-language relationship in his 1940 book Race, Language, and Culture. Early genetic work on this relationship can be traced to Cavali-Sforza and coleauges who first documented the spread of early agriculturists along with Indo-European languages. Also see Peter Bellwood's book The First Farmers for a worldwide view of this agricultural-gene-language association. In addition the article does not take into account historical linguists such as that by Joseph Greenberg, Merrit Ruhlen, Joanna Nichols, and others work into the evolution of languges.
I realize the statistical tools these individuals are using are new to quantify language differences but they are also controversial. A problem with most papers that equate cultural and biological evolution is that they assume the rate is the same. The majority of linguists believe that the deepest time one can study a language decay rate is 8,000 years. This idea is largely based on glottochronology and Joanna Nichols (1992) suggested an earlier date of around 30,000-40,000 years using a different methodology. The method that Pagel et al. (2007) use indicates a deeper time even. However, humans are a couple hundred thousand years old at best and we don't know exactly when languages show up in evolutionary history. There is good evidence that Neanderthals can speak but could Homo erectus or earlier hominins. There is also a fundamental difference between communication and language - chimps can learn language but in the wild they use elaborate communication systems to talk to each other. Is this language? even if it isn't human language.
