The First Word

The First Word
Christine Kenneally

Christine Kenneally brings a unique perspective to popular science writing; she's a freelance journalist but also has a PhD in linguistics from Oxford. The First Word is therefore primarily a piece of journalism, secondarily a scientific look at the evolution of language. It is the anti-Pinker; very straightforward, unchatty, and more distanced from concrete conclusions. But it's probably the only way available to get a good glimpse of the complexity and contention surrounding the very new field of the evolution of language.

Kenneally's main thesis is that the strictly old-style Chomskyan model of a pre-programmed syntax is not consistent with modern experimentation and therefore is false [in fact, a simple statistical argument would have sufficed for me: the probability that the number of genetic mutations required to construct all of Chomsky's Universal Grammar could arise in one generation, as the theory demands, is much smaller than your average zero]. Her conclusion is that language does require some innate and specialized genetic code [descended larynx, fine motor control of mouth and tongue, some built-in language-specific cognitive structure, etc.]. However, this coding arose over thousands of generations for other purposes than language itself; language is a pastiche of adaptations which were beneficial in more ways than just verbal communication. Language is not a thing as much as it is a set of communication and cognition capabilities developed and boot-strapped together into a coherent ability. This is evident by the fact that many of the traits which are recognized as essential to human language production are homologues we share with our genetic cousins, and even those less related to us.

Kenneally goes a bit too far. The structure of her book is very balanced and journalistic; she gives several rounds of the debate to various sides, often giving way to broadside blows and rhetoric that would make Nancy Pelosi proud. However, the last word is given to those who oppose UG, despite the fact that a majority of them are not actually linguists, but ape researchers. This sells the very successful and still useful old model quite short. It should be customary for the old theory to get the final chance to defend itself, especially one as deeply entrenched and successful as UG.

Very little of the book deals with linguistics itself, but rather ape language study and evolutionary biology. Despite a truly epic amount of research, I feel that Kenneally didn't completely understand the evolutionary biology she was reporting on. Here's an example:

Evolution is the process by which genetic mutation influences the reproductive viability of individuals and propagates genetically across the species according to the reproductive advantage the mutation gives the individual over the other members of its species. Evolution proceeds by two paths: natural selection, in which the mutation influences survivability; and sexual selection, in which the mutation influences the likelihood that an individual will actually reproduce. Natural selection gets all the attention because it is the real driver of the creation of species. Sexual selection is traditionally associated with creating sexual dimorphism--males and females having different appearances--and mostly superficial traits. So sexual selection changes mostly details within a species [this is a vast overgeneralization, but it's mostly accurate].

This is very important for the study of the evolution of language. The human species has basically stopped evolving by natural selection; people in modern society live or die according to geographic and socioeconomic conditions and not, generally, as a result of personal genetics. However, sexual selection has taken its place as a vastly powerful means of shaping the species. The caution with which most humans choose who to create children with ensures that there is at least the potential for major genetic trends to be introduced to the species by sexual selection alone [more on this in a subsequent post].

So, what am I driving at? Christine Kenneally has completely ignored the effect of sexual selection in language evolution, and I think it is potentially the most important driver of recent hominid evolution. In fact, she only devotes one paragraph to sexual selection and dismisses it promptly with an analogy from Tecumseh Fitch, one of the scientists she interviewed for the book. The analogy goes something like this:

Peacocks have strong sexual dimorphism from sexual selection. The selection pressure forced the sexes apart, instead of brought them forward together to new traits. Since human language is balanced between the sexes, it cannot be the result of sexual selection.

Besides being a faulty analogy, this is one fabulously impoverished piece of logic. First off, a peahen doesn't need a gaudy tail in order to be attracted to a male's gaudy tail. But a female human must have somewhat comparable language to the male who is courting her in order for her to even observe the trait. It is fairly easy to imagine that the only male in a band of early hominids who can communicate with a particular female at her capacity is more likely to be the father of her children. Secondly, the whole notion of sexual selection becomes infinitely messy and unpredictable with very social species, which we and our recent ancestors are. So comparing us to peacocks is completely disingenuous. It is clear that sexual selection is a potentially powerful force in human evolution, so why ignore it? I think the problem lies in the fact that traditional evolutionary biology focuses on the creation of species, for which sexual selection is impotent compared to natural selection. The language evolution people have inherited this inappropriate bias. [note that I don't claim to possess a model for how sexual selection influenced the genesis of language; how the female and the male came to the same mutation is difficult to understand without invoking widespread incest. But it should at least be obvious that the potential power of sexual selection demands that it be part of the discussion].

Not to get too tied up in this point, here's the rub: The First Word is a great and important book. The question of the origin of language is at least as vexing as the properties of dark matter, and the prospects of conquering the problem significantly less so. Christine Kenneally does a fabulous job of crystallizing and enlightening the debate, and presenting the most recent research. The fact that I disagree with her to a degree is not surprising; out of many dozens of researchers she interviewed for this book, no two agree on the subject either. The issue of language evolution is crucial for understanding our species and ourselves, and this book does a nearly perfect job of drawing the borders over which the wars of human nature will be fought for the next decades.

[Washoe, the first non-human trained for human communication, died two days ago. She was a significant character in the book.]