Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27368620›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2017

How can we detect when language emerged?

Ian Tattersall

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The evolution of the capacity for language: the ecological context and adaptive value of a process of cognitive hijacking.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2018
    Review
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Ian TattersallAmerican Museum of Natural History, New York, NY, 10024, USA. iant@amnh.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Views differ radically as to how deep the roots of language lie in human phylogeny, largely because prior to the development of writing systems, this striking human attribute has to be inferred from indirect proxies preserved in the material record. Here I argue that the most appropriate such archaeological proxies encode the modern human symbolic cognitive system from which language emerges. Throughout the 2.5 million years or more for which an archaeological record has existed, change has been both sporadic and rare-until symbolic objects and behaviors begin to appear, well within the tenure of our highly apomorphic species Homo sapiens. I propose that the biology underwriting our unusual cognitive and linguistic systems was acquired in the major developmental reorganization that gave rise to our anatomically distinctive species around 200,000 years ago in Africa. However, the material record indicates that this new potential lay fallow for around 100,000 years, following which it was released by what was necessarily a behavioral stimulus. By far the best candidate for that stimulus is the spontaneous invention of language, which is plausibly underwritten by a relatively simple mental algorithm, and could readily have spurred symbolic cognitive processes in a feedback process. None of this means that earlier hominid vocal communication systems were not complex, or that extinct hominid species were not highly intelligent. But it does emphasize the qualitative distinctiveness of both modern symbolic cognition and language.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionCognitionHominidaeLanguageAnimalsHumansIntelligenceSymbolismWritingLanguage evolutionOrigin of Homo sapiensSpeech evolutionSymbolic cognition

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.