What the hands can tell us about language emergence

Abstract

Why, in all cultures in which hearing is possible, has language become the province of speech and the oral modality? I address this question by widening the lens with which we look at language to include the manual modality. I suggest that human communication is most effective when it makes use of two types of formats—a discrete and segmented code, produced simultaneously along with an analog and mimetic code. The segmented code is supported by both the oral and the manual modalities. However, the mimetic code is more easily handled by the manual modality. We might then expect mimetic encoding to be done preferentially in the manual modality (gesture), leaving segmented encoding to the oral modality (speech). This argument rests on two assumptions: (1) The manual modality is as good at segmented encoding as the oral modality; sign languages, established and idiosyncratic, provide evidence for this assumption. (2) Mimetic encoding is important to human communication and best handled by the manual modality; co-speech gesture provides evidence for this assumption. By including the manual modality in two contexts—when it takes on the primary function of communication (sign language), and when it takes on a complementary communicative function (gesture)—in our analysis of language, we gain new perspectives on the origins and continuing development of language.

An inverse relation between expressiveness and grammatical integration: On the morphosyntactic typology of ideophones, with special reference to Japanese

“…We define the EXPRESSIVENESS of linguistic signs as the degree to which they are foregrounded as distinct from other items, for instance by special intonational or phonational features. This is in line with the established use of 'expressive' as a term that contrasts with 'plain', 'ordinary' or 'prosaic' (Fudge 1970, Diffloth 1980, Zwicky & Pullum 1987, Joseph 1994. A key notion here is foregrounding: 'the use of the devices of the language in such a way that this use itself attracts attention' (Havránek 1964: 10).…”

Empirical approaches to the study of language evolution

“…Although written language is to some extent Bparasitic^on spoken language, scholars now universally accept that signed languages are full linguistic systems, as communicatively adequate as spoken language when acquired from birth (Emmorey, 2002;Klima & Bellugi, 1979;Stokoe, 1960). Clearly, language as a system for expressing thought is not limited to the audio-vocal channel (for further implications of this fact, see de Boer, 2016;Goldin-Meadow, 2016;Kendon, 2016).…”

“…This is appealing in that gesture is present in both apes and in modern humans, so we can assume it was present and playing a communicative role throughout hominin evolution. Many commentators side with the idea that pitting vocal and gestural models against each other creates a false dichotomy (de Boer, 2016;Goldin-Meadow, 2016;Kendon, 2016). Donald's piece in the current issue lays out this model and predictions concisely.…”

Multimodality and the origin of a novel communication system in face-to-face interaction

“…However, they do provide a useful model and these experimental results have been used to support theories of language evolution. For example, Fay et al [42,103] made two inferences [105]: first, that gesture has more potential for motivated signs (iconicity, indexicality) than vocalizations; and second, that iconic signals can help bootstrap a communication system. They conclude that gesture would have been an important part of early communication systems, to the extent that gesture helps convey meanings through iconicity.…”