8/3/2019 Hockett. the Origin of Speech. 1960

1/8

The Origin of Speechby Charles F. Hackett

September 2960Man is the only animal that can communicate by meansofabstract symbols. Yet this ability shares manyfeatures with communication in other animals, and has

arisen from these more primitive systems

bout 50 years ago the Linguistic

il. ociety of Paris established astanding rule barring from itssessions papers on the origin of language.This action was a symptom of the times.Speculation about the origin of languagehad been common throughout the 19thcentury, but had reached no conclusiveresults, The whole enterprise in conse-quence had come to be frowned upon-as futile or crackpot--in respectablelinguistic and philological circles. Yetamidst the speculations there were twowell-reasoned empirical plans that de-ser\ e mention even though their resultswere negative,

.J, century ago there were still manyC~YIrers of the world that had not beenFJ lted by European travelers. It was8 cisonable for the European scholar to

aspect that beyond the farthest fron-ers there migh t lurk half-men or man-pes who would be living fossils

ittesting to earlier stages of humanevolution. ihe speech ( or quasi-speech)of these men (or quasi-men) mightthen similarly attest to earlier stages inthe evolution of language. The searchUQS vain. ,Xowhere in the world hasthere been discovered a language thatcan validly and meaningfully be calledpriinitive. Edward Sapir wrote in1921: There is no more striking gcn-era1 fact about language than its uni-versality, One may argue as to tvhethera particular tribe engages in activitiesthat are worthy of the name of religionor of art, but we know of no people thatis not possessed of a fully developedlanguage. The lowliest South AfricanBushrnan speaks in the forms of a richsymbolic system that is in essence per-fectly comparable to the speech of thecultivated Frenchman.

The other empirical hope in the 19thcentury rested on the comparative meth-

od of historical linguistics, the discoveryof which was one of the triumphs of theperiod. Between two languages the re-semblances are sometimes so extensiveand orderly that they cannot be attrib-uted to chance or to parallel develop-ment. The alternative explanation is thatthe two are divergent descendants of asingle earlier language. English, Dutch,Cerman and the Scandinavian languagesare related in just this way. The com-parative method makes it possible to ex-amine such a group of related languagesand to construct, often in surprising de-tail, a portrayal of the common ancestor,in this ease the proto-Germanic lan-guage. Direct documentary evidence ofproto-Germanic does not exist, yet un-derstanding of its workings exceeds thatof many languages spoken today.

There was at first some hope tha t thecomparative method might help deter-mine the origin of language. This hopewas rational in a day when it wasthought that language might be only afew thousands or tens of thousands ofJean old, and when it was repeatedlybeing demonstrated that languages thathad been thought to be unreIated werein fact related. By applying the com-parative method to all the languages ofthe world, some earliest reconstructab,lehartzon would be reached. This mightnot date back so early as the origin oflanguage, but it migh t bear certain ear-marks of primitiveness, and thus it wouldenable investigators to extrnpola te to-ward the origin. This hope also provedvain. The earliest reconstructable stagefor any language famiIy shovvs all thecomplexities and flexibiiities of the lan-guages of today.rr hese points had become clear a half-century ago, by the time of the Parisruling. Scholars cannot really approve of

I, _

I .

such a prohibition. But in this instanceit had the useful result of channeling theenergies of investigators toward thegathering of more and better informationabout languages as they are today. Thesubsequent progress in understandingthe workings of language has been trulyremarkable. Various related fields havealso made vast strides in the last half-century: zoologists know more about theevolutionary process, anthropologistsknow more about the nature of culture,and so on. In the light of these develop-ments there need be no apology-for re-opening the issue of the origins of hu-man speech.

Although the comparative method oflinguistics, as has been shown, throws nolight on the origin of language, the in-vestigation may he furthered bv a com-parative method modeled on thlt of thezoologist. The frame of reference mustbe such that all languages look alikewhen vievved through it, but such thatwithin it human language as a whole canbe compared with the communicativesystems of other animals, especially theother hominoids , mans closest livingrelatives, the gibbons and great apes.The usefu1 items for this SOI of com-parison cannot be things such as thelvord for sky; languages have suchwords, but gibbon calls do not involvewords at all. Nor can they be even thesignal for danger, which g ibbons doh ave. Bather, they m ust be the basicfeatures of design that can be presentor absent in any communicative system,whether it be a ~or~i~~u~~j~ative systemof humans, of animals or of machines.

With this sort of comparative methodit may be possible to reconstruct thecommunicative habits of the remote an-cestors of the hominoid line, which maybe called the protohominoids. The task,then, is to work out the sequence by

8/3/2019 Hockett. the Origin of Speech. 1960

2/8

6 I 1 HUMAN LANGUAGE AND ANIMAL COMMUNICATION

which that ancestral system became lan-guage as the hominids-the man-apes:I11d ancient men-became man.

A set of 13 design-features is pre-sented in the illustration on the op-posite page. There is solid empirical jus-tification for the belief that all the Jan-pages of the world share every one ofthem. At first sight some appear SO rivialthat no one looking just at languagewould bother to note them. They becomeworthy of ment ion only when it is real-ized that certain animal systems-andcertain human systems other than Jan-guagc-Jack them.

The first design-feature-the vocal-auditory channel-is perhaps the mostobvious. There are systems of communi-cation that use other channels; for exnm-pie, gesture, the dancing of bees or thecourtship ritual of the stickleback. Thevocal-auditory channel has the advan-tnge-at least for primates-that it leavesmuch of the body free for other activitiesthat can be carried 013 at the same time.

The next two design-features-rapidfading and broadcast transmission andtlirectional reception, stemming fromthe physics of sound--are aJmost un-avoidable consequences of the first. Alinguistic signal can be heard by anyauditory system xvithin earshot, and thesource can normally be localized by bin-aural direction-finding. The rapid fad-ing of such a signal means that it doesnot linger for reception at the hearersconvenience. Animal tracks and spoors,on the other hand, persist for a while; SOof cg\Irse do written records, a productof i~xiris extremely recent cultural evo-Jl:tjon.

The significance of interchangeabil-ity and t&al feedback for Janguagebecomes clear upon comparison withother systems. In general a speaker of aJ*lnguage can reproduce any Jinguisticmessage. he can understand, whereas thecharacteristic courtship motions of themale ar3d female stickleback are differ-cnt, and neither cart act out those ap-propriate to the other. For that matterin the communication of a human rnoth-er and infant neither is apt to transmitthe characteristic signals or to manifestthe typical responses of the other. Again,the speaker of a Jangulge hears, by totalfeedback, ever)?hing of Jirgguistic reIe-vance in what he himself says. In con-trast, the male stickleback does not seethe colors of his own eye and belly thatare crucial in stimulating the fe-male. Feedback is inlportant, since itmakes possible the so-called internah-zation of communicative behavior that

constitutes at least a major portion ofthinking.

The sixth design-feature, specinliza-Con, refers to the fact that the bodilyeffort and spreading sound waves ofspeech serve no function except as sig-nals. A dog, panting with his tonguehanging out, is performing a biologicallyessential activity, since this is how dogscool themselves off and maintain theproper body temperature. The pantingdog incidentafly produces sound, andthereby may inform other dogs (or hu-mans) as to where he is and how hefeels. But this transmission of informn-tion is strictty a side effect. Nor does thedogs panting exhibit the design-featureof semanticitv. , It is not a signal mean-ing that the dog is hot; it is part of beinghot. In language, however, a mess;lgetriggers the particular result it does be-cduse there are rel3tively fixed ,lssocia-tions between elements in messages(e.g., words) al3d recurrent features orsituations of the world around us. Forexample, the English word salt meanssalt, not sugar or pepper. The cnlfs ofgibbons also possess semanticity. Thegibbon has a danger call, for exlmple,nl3d it does not in principle matter thatthe meaning of the call is a great dealbroader ;md mole vague than, say, thecry of Fire!

In a semantic communicative systemthe ties between meaningful message-elements and their meanings can be nr-bitrary or nonarbitrary. In Innguage theties are arbitrary. The word salt is notsalty nor granular; dog is not canine;w,hnJe is n small \+lord for a large ob-ject ; micl oorg2nism is the reverse. Apicture, on the other hand, looks likewhat it is a picture of. A bee dancesfaster If the source of nectar she is re-porting is closer, and slower if it is far-ther nw,~y. The design-feature of Jrbi-tl .IriJXZSS hns the disadvantage of beingarbitrary, but the gre;lt advant,lge thatthere is 130 limit to what ca13 be com-municated about.

Hum,u3 vocal organs can produce ahuge variety of sound. But in any onelangu,tge only n reJ,itiveJy small set ofranges of sou13d is used, and the differ-ences bet\veen these ranges are function-;rJly absolute. The E:3glish words pinand bin

8/3/2019 Hockett. the Origin of Speech. 1960

3/8

7

1 VOCAL-AUDITORY CHANNEL

4 INTERCHANGEAB!LITY

7 SEMANTICITY

10 DISPLACEMENT ?,-

2 BROADCAST TRANSMISSIONAND DIRECTIONAL RECEPTION

r3 TOTAL FEEDBACK

8 ARBITRARINESS

WHALE

MICROORGANISMS

11 PRODUCTIVITY

-

3 RAPID FADING (TRANSITORINESS)

6 SPECIALIZATION

9 DISCRETENESS

TRADITIONAL TRANSMISSION

13 DUALITY OF PATTERNINGT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E A.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .M

M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..a............ E A.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . , . .T

8/3/2019 Hockett. the Origin of Speech. 1960

4/8

8

ICELANDIC ENGtiSH DUTCH DANISH

I NORWEGIAN

OlD ICE!ANDI

DISH

FLEMISH

iD

NORTHGERMANDIALECTS

I

SOUTHGERMANDIALECTS

ORIGIN OF 310DERN GERMIASIC LANGUAGES, as indicated by this family tree,~8s yroto-Germanic, spoken some 2,700 years ago. Comparisolr of present-day languageshas ~~ov~d~d detailed knowledge of ~roto~~~~~~;c, although no direct documentary evi.dence for the lanp5uage exists. It grew, in turn, from the proto-lndo-EuropefrY of 5000 B.C.Historical studies cannot, however, trace origins of Ianguage back much further in time.

tack, cat and act. They are totallydistinct as to meaning, and yet are com-posed of just three basic meaninglesssounds in different permutations. Fewanimal communicative systems share thisdesign-feature of language-none amongthe other hominoids, and perhaps noneat all.

I should be noted that some of these13 design-features are not independ-ent. In pa&cular, a system cannot beeither arbitrary or nonarbitrary unless itis semantic, a;d it cannot ha;e dualityof- patterning unless it is semantic. Itshould also be noted that the listing doesn6t attempt to include all the featuresthat might be discovered in the commu-nicative behavior of this or that species,but only those that are clearly import ilntfor language.

It is probably safe to assume that nineof the 13 features were already presentin the vocal-auditory communicat ion ofthe protohominoids-just the nine thatire securely attested for the gibbons andhumans of today. That is, there were adozen or so disiinct calls, each the ap-propriate vocal response (or vocal partof the whole response) to a recurrentnnd biologicall>* important type of situ-LItion: the discovery of food, the detec-tion of a predator, sexual in/crest, needfor mi>ternal care, and SO on. The prob-lem of the origin of hum,m speech, then,is that of trying to determine how such a. -system could have developed the four,ldditionnl properties of displncernent,productivity and full-blon n traditionaltransmission. Of course the full star) in -vohes a gleat deal more than cornmuni-c;>ti\e behs\ior alone. The developmentmust be visualized as occurring in thecontext of the evolution of the ptim~tehorde into the primitive society Gf food-gather -ers tnd hunters, an i13tegriIl part,but a part, of the total evolution of be-havior.

It is possible to imagine closed svs-Itern developing some degree of p[oduc-tivity, even in the absence of the otherthree features. IIuman speech exhibits aphenomenon that could hake this eflect,the phenomenon of blending. Some-times a slxaker will hesitjte bet\n,eentwo words or phrases, both rejsonablyappropriate for the situation in which heis speaking, and actuCllly say somethingthat is neither wholly one nor wholly theother, but a combination of parts ofeach. Hesitating between Dont shoutso loud and Dont yell so loud, hemight come out with Dont shell SOloud. Blending is almost alw;tys in-volved in slips of the tongue, but it may

8/3/2019 Hockett. the Origin of Speech. 1960

5/8

HOMINOIDS

(LAND) MAMMALS

VERTEBRATES

CHORDATES

- , _ - ____. _ __-_._-- ..- _ -.... -.--DISPLACEMENTPRODUCTIVITYDUALITY OF PATTERNING

TOOL-h&WING AND CARRYINGLARYNX AND SOFT PAtATE SEPARATEDHUMOR VOWEL COLOR MUSIC

DISCRETENESS BIPEDALLOCOMOTION, NOT UPRIGHTTRADITIONAL TRANSMlSSlON OCCASIONAL TOOL USING

.SPECIALIZATION HANDS HAND-EYE COORDINATION

BlNbCUUR VSICNSEMANTICITY 1M09ltE FACIAL MUSCtESARBITRARINESS OMNlVOROUSl- -

BROADCAST TRANSMISSIONAND DIRECTIONAL RECEPTION

,INTERCHANGEABILITY SOCIAL BEHAVIOR PLAYRAPID FADING TOTAL FEEDBACK < WARM BLOODEDNESSVOCAL-AUDITORY CHANNEL

_.- . .- - __.A _ _ - ..- ___A ._ ._____ ._-._L. .. ,LAND EGGBREATHiNG WITH THORACIC MUSCLES

LEGSSLEEPING VE?SUSWAKINGEXTEZNALEAR

VLSION/-iEARING (INTERNAL EAR)

MOTILITY BtVITERALSYMMETRYFRONT AND REARENDS

EVOLUTION OF LANGUAGE and some related characteristics evolved beyond the characteristics exhibited by all the groupsare suggested by this classification of chordates. The lowest form below. The 13 design-features of larrgtlage appear in the coloredof animal in each classification exhibits the features listed at the rectangle. Some but by no means aI1 of the characteristics a&so-right of the clns~. Brackets indicate that each group possesses oc has ciated with communication are presented in the column at right.

8/3/2019 Hockett. the Origin of Speech. 1960

6/8

10 I 1 HUMAll LANGUAGE AND ANIMAL COMMUNICATIONalso be the regular mechanism by which are. A child may have a repertory ofa speaker of a language says someth ing several dozen sentences, each of which,that he has not said before. Anything a in adult terms, has an internal structure,speaker sdys must be either an exact and yet for the child each may be anrepetition of an utterance he has heard indivisible whole. He may also learnbefore, or else some blended product of new whole utterances from surroundingt\vo or more such familiar utterances. adults. The child takes the crucial step,Thus even such a smooth and normal however, when he first says someth ingsentence as I tried toget there, but the that he has not learned from others. Thecar broke down might be produced as only way in which the child can possiblya blend, say, of I tried to get there but do this is by blending t\vo of the wholecouldnt and While I w;ls driving down utterances thnt he alrtndy knows.l\fain Street the car broke down.

Children acquiring the language of I 11 the case of the closed call-systemtheir community pass throtlgh a stage of the gibbons or the protclhou7inc)its,that is closed in just the wa> gibbon calls there is no source for the ~cldition of new

unitary calls to the repertory except per-haps by occasional imitation of the callsand cries of other species. Even thiswould not render the system productive,but would merely enlarge it. But blend-ing might occur. Let AB represent thefood call and CD the danger call, eacha fairly complex phonetic pattern. Sup-pose a protohominoid encountered foodand cilught sight of a predator at thesune time. If the two stimuli were bnl-LIJlCfd just right, he might emit the callsABCD or CDAB in quick sequence, ormight even produce AD or CB. AJIY ofthese would be a blend. AD, for es:lmpie,not11d mean both food and danger. By

BEE DANCING

*LIMITED . :

:~---1-- --.- --

STICKLEBACKCOURTSHIP MEADOWLARKSONG

IN PART 2

8/3/2019 Hockett. the Origin of Speech. 1960

7/8

H CX hEIT THE OFJGIN OF SPEECH 11

MidGUAGEAUDITORY,

PJGT VOCAl

-. - - - ..-- - - - ___^--

-- - -. -_ _ ---IN PART

8/3/2019 Hockett. the Origin of Speech. 1960

8/8

12 I 1 HUMAN LANGUAGE riND ANIMAL COMMUNICATIOPJ

for traditjonal transmission and for dis-plscement. But these in turn increase theSw~ival value of the communkative sys-tem. 4 child can be taught how to avoidctArt,lin dangers before he actually en-counters them.r 1 hese developments are also neces-I s,lrjly related to the appearance of1:11ge and convoluted brains, which areMter storage units for the conventions;rf a complex communicati\ae system andior other traditionally transmitted skills,lnd practices. IIence the adaptative1.~11~ of the behavior serves to selectc;enetically for the change in structure.A lengthened period of childhood hclp-lt5sness is also a lonser period of plastic-ity for learning. There is therefore selec-tion for prolonged childhood and, withit, Inter matltrity ilnd longer life. withmore for the young to learn, and withmale as well as female tasks tobe taught,f,\thers become more dolnesticated. Theilrcrease of displacement promotes re-

.__._ _,.._-.. ._- _

tention and foresight; a male can pro-tect his mate and guard her jeJouslyfrom other males even when he does notat the moment hunger for her.

There is excellent reason to believethat duality of patterning was the lastproperty to be developed, because onecan find little if any reason why a com-municative system should have thisproperty unless it is highly complicated.If a vocal-auditory system comes to havea larger and larger number of distinctmeaningful elements, those elements in-evitably come to be more ,~ntl mole sim-ilar to one another in sound. There is npractical limit, for any species or ;Inymachine , to the number of distinct stim-uli that can be discrimiil,ited, especi,tllv\\ hen the discriminations tvpicClllv haveIto be made in noisy conditions. Supposethat Samuel F . B. hforse, in devising histelegraph code, had proposed ,I signal.I second long for A, .2 second longfor B, 2nd so on up to 2.6 seconds forZ. Operators would have enormous

I

difficulty learning and using any suchsystem. What Morse actually did was toincorporate the principle of duality ofpatterning. The telegraph operltor h,~sto learn to discriminate, in the first in-stance, only two lengths of pulse alidabout three lengths of pause. Each letteris coded into a different arrangement ofthese elementary meC~ning lcss units. Thearrangements are ezily kept apart be-cause the few metningless units areplainly distinguish,~ble.

The nn,ilogy expllins wh> it was ad-vnntlgeous for the forerunner of lan-guage, JS it MYIS bccomillg increasinglycomplex, to acquire du&ty of p.lttern-ing. Ho\vever it occurred, this W;IS .Imajor brenkthlough; tvithout it lang~~,~gecould not posblblv have ,lchie\ed theefficiency *lnd flexibility it h:ls.

One of the b,lsic principles of ebolu-tionlry theory holds that the initi,ll SW-viva1 value of nnv jnnov,ttion is con-servative in th,lt it m,tkes possible theinaintendnce of n 1;1Igely tracfitionnl ~vayof life in the face of ch,mged cireum-stmces. There was nothing in the make-up of the protohominoids that destinedtheir descendants to become hlml:u~ .Some of them, indeed, did not. Theymade their w~y to ecologic;ll nicheswhere food W,IS plentiful :md predntotssuf&ieIitIy avoidable, ,~nd \vbere the de-velopmeltt of primitive v,lrirtics of 111~gage end clultul e u w11tf ha\ e bt:stc\~ edno ad\ 4nt;ige. They sul>i\e still, \\lthvarious svits of speci,tli72tion, ,~s thegibbons 3rd the gleat apes.