Speech, stone tool-making and the evolution of language.

The 'technological hypothesis' proposes that gestural language evolved in early hominins to enable the cultural transmission of stone tool-making skills, with speech appearing later in response to the complex lithic industries of more recent hominins. However, no flintknapping study has as...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Dana Michelle Cataldo, Andrea Bamberg Migliano, Lucio Vinicius
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2018-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5774752?pdf=render
id doaj-b51fbcc83a9e48418346dd275efcd46a
record_format Article
spelling doaj-b51fbcc83a9e48418346dd275efcd46a2020-11-25T01:14:48ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032018-01-01131e019107110.1371/journal.pone.0191071Speech, stone tool-making and the evolution of language.Dana Michelle CataldoAndrea Bamberg MiglianoLucio ViniciusThe 'technological hypothesis' proposes that gestural language evolved in early hominins to enable the cultural transmission of stone tool-making skills, with speech appearing later in response to the complex lithic industries of more recent hominins. However, no flintknapping study has assessed the efficiency of speech alone (unassisted by gesture) as a tool-making transmission aid. Here we show that subjects instructed by speech alone underperform in stone tool-making experiments in comparison to subjects instructed through either gesture alone or 'full language' (gesture plus speech), and also report lower satisfaction with their received instruction. The results provide evidence that gesture was likely to be selected over speech as a teaching aid in the earliest hominin tool-makers; that speech could not have replaced gesturing as a tool-making teaching aid in later hominins, possibly explaining the functional retention of gesturing in the full language of modern humans; and that speech may have evolved for reasons unrelated to tool-making. We conclude that speech is unlikely to have evolved as tool-making teaching aid superior to gesture, as claimed by the technological hypothesis, and therefore alternative views should be considered. For example, gestural language may have evolved to enable tool-making in earlier hominins, while speech may have later emerged as a response to increased trade and more complex inter- and intra-group interactions in Middle Pleistocene ancestors of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens; or gesture and speech may have evolved in parallel rather than in sequence.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5774752?pdf=render
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Dana Michelle Cataldo
Andrea Bamberg Migliano
Lucio Vinicius
spellingShingle Dana Michelle Cataldo
Andrea Bamberg Migliano
Lucio Vinicius
Speech, stone tool-making and the evolution of language.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Dana Michelle Cataldo
Andrea Bamberg Migliano
Lucio Vinicius
author_sort Dana Michelle Cataldo
title Speech, stone tool-making and the evolution of language.
title_short Speech, stone tool-making and the evolution of language.
title_full Speech, stone tool-making and the evolution of language.
title_fullStr Speech, stone tool-making and the evolution of language.
title_full_unstemmed Speech, stone tool-making and the evolution of language.
title_sort speech, stone tool-making and the evolution of language.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2018-01-01
description The 'technological hypothesis' proposes that gestural language evolved in early hominins to enable the cultural transmission of stone tool-making skills, with speech appearing later in response to the complex lithic industries of more recent hominins. However, no flintknapping study has assessed the efficiency of speech alone (unassisted by gesture) as a tool-making transmission aid. Here we show that subjects instructed by speech alone underperform in stone tool-making experiments in comparison to subjects instructed through either gesture alone or 'full language' (gesture plus speech), and also report lower satisfaction with their received instruction. The results provide evidence that gesture was likely to be selected over speech as a teaching aid in the earliest hominin tool-makers; that speech could not have replaced gesturing as a tool-making teaching aid in later hominins, possibly explaining the functional retention of gesturing in the full language of modern humans; and that speech may have evolved for reasons unrelated to tool-making. We conclude that speech is unlikely to have evolved as tool-making teaching aid superior to gesture, as claimed by the technological hypothesis, and therefore alternative views should be considered. For example, gestural language may have evolved to enable tool-making in earlier hominins, while speech may have later emerged as a response to increased trade and more complex inter- and intra-group interactions in Middle Pleistocene ancestors of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens; or gesture and speech may have evolved in parallel rather than in sequence.
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5774752?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT danamichellecataldo speechstonetoolmakingandtheevolutionoflanguage
AT andreabambergmigliano speechstonetoolmakingandtheevolutionoflanguage
AT luciovinicius speechstonetoolmakingandtheevolutionoflanguage
_version_ 1725156475629731840