Human Language: Performance, Competence, and Evolution

According to Nancy Bonvillain (2008), language "is the primary means of interaction between people. Speakers use language to convey their thoughts, feelings, intentions, and desires to others" (pg. 1). Language involves both performance (the ability to use language in whatever form it might take) and competence (knowledge of how language might work and knowledge of what context certain things can be said and when they can not). Language is also interactive, situational, and is heavily rooted in culture. Just as any other cultural form, language is shared and it is learned. Nevertheless, Chomsky argued "the deepest structures of language are innate" (Cartmill, 1998). It is certainly worth mention that, from a genetic standpoint, language does revolve around a series of genes that make language possible. Of particular note, is FOXP2. FOXP2 is a gene found on chromosome 7 that is thought to have had some impact on the human ability to speak and does have some involvement in the motor areas that control speech. It is necessary to point out that the motor areas of the brain control movements that are voluntary, as opposed to sensory areas that involve the recognition of sensation. This means that the ability to facilitate speech in humans is a deliberate act, not unlike bending one's knees in exercise or extending an arm and hand to point a finger. The point being, language, at least in humans, is not simply an automated response. It is a complex and intricate process involving numerous, cognitive functions. If I had to offer my own definition of language, and somehow reconcile both its cultural and biological aspects, it would be: Language is something humans are able to do by means of a unique genetic disposition that is further influenced by unique and varying life histories.

There is some speculation as to how language might have evolved in our species. Two of these are as follows: 1) The continuity model stresses a unilineal paradigm in which language evolved by degree, beginning with a simpler form and increasing toward greater and greater complexity. 2) The discontinuity model, just as the word implies, states that an abrupt change in the human brain created language. For myself, the continuity model seems the most likely. If there were no intermediate stages for language, as the discontinuity model suggests, that would surely mean that language is an adaptation that, for whatever reason, exists outside the realm of Darwinian evolution. Language would have had to come about "by accident, through some glorious, random mutation" (Cartmill, 1998). It should be remembered, of course, that it is nearly impossible to determine if an extinct species (take Homo erectus, for example) was able to facilitate complex language. Without a proper understanding of early, hominin brain morphology, the task becomes even more difficult. Endocranial casts alone seem hardly sufficient. In response, paleoanthropologists have turned their gaze toward other areas. In regard to the throat and mouth, there are anatomical specializations that make language possible in modern humans. These include the larynx (the voice box), pharynx (the throat), and the tongue, and this arrangement can be studied in transitional species. Still, the origin of human language continues to remain inconclusive.

To conclude, language does not simply revolve around speech and oral communication. It can be written, gestured, embodied in a facial expression, or even "signed." It seems many species have some form of communication, but it is the degree in which our species is able to communicate that I find interesting. Human language is both dynamic and reflexive in this regard. Without a doubt, complex communication is one of our least understood, evolutionary adaptations.

References:

Bonvillain, N. (2008). Language, Culture, and Communication. New Jersey: Pearson.
Cartmill, M. (1998, November). The Gift of Gab. Discover, 56, 58, 62-64.