3 ms·

It looks like they actually say at least 135K years ago, as that is the latest it could have happened.

Cthulhu_ 2y ago
Yeah, this is a common occurrence in that something is reported to have happened at year X, but in practice it will have emerged rouglhy around that time, and never at one fixed moment in time. Possibly re-emerged over and over again until it stuck.
vharuck 2y ago
So this finding is in the same vein as mathematicians who can't yet prove or disprove a conjecture, but can prove tighter restrictions than we knew before. Still interesting, and, more importantly, often productive of new paths or methods of analysis. As for the article itself, I'm not sold. The analysis was about narrowing down to find the most recent regional split in our genetics, with the assumption that language formed before humans split across regions. That would work if we assumed the capability to develop language rested largely on genetics. If a lot of animals could develop a language, then the explosion of human language could come from imitation when one regional group without a language meets another with a language. >"Human language is qualitatively different because there are two things, words and syntax, working together to create this very complex system," Miyagawa says. "No other animal has a parallel structure in their communication system. And that gives us the ability to generate very sophisticated thoughts and to communicate them to others." I have seen a lot of ideas about human mental exceptionalism fall apart. It wouldn't surprise me to find out in a few years that dolphins developed syntax.
- ForTheKidz 2y ago
  I think we already have decent evidence of animals having synytax. Presumably Miyagawa means something like recursive syntax.
  - mannykannot 2y ago
    I agree - and some animals even have semantics, as evidenced by those which have some intuitive understanding of alarm calls, and even more so when they do so for the calls of other species. On the other hand, I doubt they know they have syntax and semantics.
    - gwervc 2y ago
      > On the other hand, I doubt they know they have syntax and semantics. A lot of humans probably ignore it too. Most don't even ever heard about phonology, which is more fundamental to language than syntax.
      - mcswell 2y ago
        Humans cannot ignore syntax or semantics, if that's what you're saying. Every human language has both, and no one can speak a language without knowing (usually implicitly) both. As for phonology, languages have that (even signed languages), but I don't see it as being more fundamental than syntax or semantics. Indeed, while some writing systems have something analogous to phonology (context-sensitive letter shapes, as in Arabic script, but also in Greek), some don't. And it's possible to learn written language without any spoken language--deaf people do that.
misja111 2y ago
Exactly. The article literally says "I think we can say with a fair amount of certainty that the first split occurred about 135,000 years ago, so human language capacity must have been present by then, or before." The title is wrong.
vanderZwan 2y ago
On that note, we know that interbreeding between Neanderthals and (the ancestors of) modern humans happened during at least two periods: > Neanderthal-derived genes descend from at least 2 interbreeding episodes outside of Africa: one about 250,000 years ago, and another 40,000 to 54,000 years. Interbreeding also occurred in other populations which are not ancestral to any living person [0] ... which makes me think that it's more likely that both populations had the genomic capacity for language all the way back in the first "episode" 250k years ago as well (but to be clear, I'm saying it seems more likely to me, not that we can safely assume this must be true) . Yes, I know that "humans are impossibly horny" is a bit of a meme, but we're not just talking about sex here, but about having offspring that is successful enough within then-existing society over many generations, to the point where the Neanderthal DNA was absorbed into the common gene pool and survived all the way to this day. It seems very unlikely to me that that would happen unless both species were on a comparable level of mental capabilities. So we either both evolved language capabilities separately around similar times somewhere after 250k years ago, or already had the basis for it before our ancestral populations split and then later met again. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#Interbreeding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#Interbreeding
Tor3 2y ago
Title was modified from what it originally said.

Yeah, this is a common occurrence in that something is reported to have happened at year X, but in practice it will have emerged rouglhy around that time, and never at one fixed moment in time. Possibly re-emerged over and over again until it stuck.

vharuck 2y ago

So this finding is in the same vein as mathematicians who can't yet prove or disprove a conjecture, but can prove tighter restrictions than we knew before. Still interesting, and, more importantly, often productive of new paths or methods of analysis. As for the article itself, I'm not sold. The analysis was about narrowing down to find the most recent regional split in our genetics, with the assumption that language formed before humans split across regions. That would work if we assumed the capability to develop language rested largely on genetics. If a lot of animals could develop a language, then the explosion of human language could come from imitation when one regional group without a language meets another with a language. >"Human language is qualitatively different because there are two things, words and syntax, working together to create this very complex system," Miyagawa says. "No other animal has a parallel structure in their communication system. And that gives us the ability to generate very sophisticated thoughts and to communicate them to others." I have seen a lot of ideas about human mental exceptionalism fall apart. It wouldn't surprise me to find out in a few years that dolphins developed syntax.

ForTheKidz 2y ago
I think we already have decent evidence of animals having synytax. Presumably Miyagawa means something like recursive syntax.
- mannykannot 2y ago
  I agree - and some animals even have semantics, as evidenced by those which have some intuitive understanding of alarm calls, and even more so when they do so for the calls of other species. On the other hand, I doubt they know they have syntax and semantics.
  - gwervc 2y ago
    > On the other hand, I doubt they know they have syntax and semantics. A lot of humans probably ignore it too. Most don't even ever heard about phonology, which is more fundamental to language than syntax.
    - mcswell 2y ago
      Humans cannot ignore syntax or semantics, if that's what you're saying. Every human language has both, and no one can speak a language without knowing (usually implicitly) both. As for phonology, languages have that (even signed languages), but I don't see it as being more fundamental than syntax or semantics. Indeed, while some writing systems have something analogous to phonology (context-sensitive letter shapes, as in Arabic script, but also in Greek), some don't. And it's possible to learn written language without any spoken language--deaf people do that.

misja111 2y ago

Exactly. The article literally says "I think we can say with a fair amount of certainty that the first split occurred about 135,000 years ago, so human language capacity must have been present by then, or before." The title is wrong.

vanderZwan 2y ago

On that note, we know that interbreeding between Neanderthals and (the ancestors of) modern humans happened during at least two periods: > Neanderthal-derived genes descend from at least 2 interbreeding episodes outside of Africa: one about 250,000 years ago, and another 40,000 to 54,000 years. Interbreeding also occurred in other populations which are not ancestral to any living person [0] ... which makes me think that it's more likely that both populations had the genomic capacity for language all the way back in the first "episode" 250k years ago as well (but to be clear, I'm saying it seems more likely to me, not that we can safely assume this must be true) . Yes, I know that "humans are impossibly horny" is a bit of a meme, but we're not just talking about sex here, but about having offspring that is successful enough within then-existing society over many generations, to the point where the Neanderthal DNA was absorbed into the common gene pool and survived all the way to this day. It seems very unlikely to me that that would happen unless both species were on a comparable level of mental capabilities. So we either both evolved language capabilities separately around similar times somewhere after 250k years ago, or already had the basis for it before our ancestral populations split and then later met again. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#Interbreeding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#Interbreeding

Tor3 2y ago

Title was modified from what it originally said.