American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY 10024, USA.
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2017 Oct;81(Pt B):247-254. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.01.043. Epub 2017 Feb 1.
One view of language origins sees it as ancient and selection-driven; the other as recent and emergent. Such disagreement occurs because language is ephemeral, detectable only by indirect proxies. Because internalized language and symbolic thought are tightly linked, the best archaeological proxies for language are symbolic objects. Nothing indicates convincingly that any hominid behaved symbolically prior to Homo sapiens, which originated 200kyr ago but started behaving symbolically only 100kyr later. Most probably the necessary neural underpinnings arose exaptively in the extensive developmental reorganization that gave rise to anatomically distinctive Homo sapiens, and were recruited subsequently via a necessarily behavioral stimulus. This was most plausibly the spontaneous invention of externalized language, in an isolate of Homo sapiens in Africa, that initiated a feedback process between externalized structured language and internalized language/organized thought. These subsequently spread in tandem throughout a species already biologically predisposed for them. Despite its qualitatively remarkable result, this exaptive process would have been perfectly routine and unremarkable in terms of evolutionary mechanism.
有一种观点认为语言起源于远古时期,是自然选择的结果;另一种观点则认为语言是近期出现的,是新兴的。之所以会产生这种分歧,是因为语言是短暂的,只能通过间接的替代物来检测。由于内化的语言和象征性思维紧密相连,因此语言的最佳考古替代物是象征性的物体。没有任何证据表明,在起源于 200 万年前的智人之前,任何原始人类都有过象征性的行为,而智人直到 100 万年前才开始有象征性的行为。最有可能的是,必要的神经基础是在导致解剖学上独特的智人出现的广泛发育重组中偶然出现的,随后通过必要的行为刺激被招募。这最有可能是在非洲的一个智人孤立群体中,自发发明了外化语言,从而启动了外化的结构化语言和内化的语言/组织思维之间的反馈过程。随后,这些语言在已经对其具有生物学倾向的物种中同时传播。尽管这一结果具有显著的质的意义,但就进化机制而言,这一适应过程是完全常规和普通的。