A research question of continuing interest to modern academics concerns the origins of nouns, verbs, adjectives and so on - in other words, all the separate components that make up human language. Did they come about suddenly, or did they emerge gradually, adapted over time? Unlike fire, the use of language did not exist before humans first created it, so we must look elsewhere for any beneficial comparison. What is more, every culture in the history of the human race places its own mark on language. It is an invention that embraces all humans and provides us with our most intense source of happiness - focused and ordered thoughts. Homo sapiens has become Homo loquax, as well-known author Tom Wolfe puts it, or in other words 'speaking man'. I would argue that our minds are enabled by language to accomplish tasks that we could otherwise never hope to complete, such as debating philosophy, following recipes and thinking about where our children are going after school.
From each of the twenty or more languages I have studied in the Amazon, Mexico and United States over the past decades, I have learned things about our species and our ability to communicate. These are things I would never have learned by living a different life. I have learned about humans' relation to nature, and about living and speaking among ancient cultures living in remote forests. I have learned how words reach into my heart and change my life.
Language gives humans their humanity. The human species has the extraordinary ability to express thoughts and feelings with visual symbols and spoken sounds. So it is only natural that scholars should want to learn more about this communicative technology, for nothing has more to tell us about what it means to be human than the forms and uses to which we put language. Indeed, language is the foundation of every human advance, from prehistoric cave paintings, to Thomas Edison's light bulb, to today's digital revolution.
No linguist or anthropologist would disagree that language is useful. But there is enormous division about where it came from. Some of these experts say that language was discovered by chance. Others believe that one brilliant Homo sapiens might have invented it about 75,000 years or so ago, as the Native American chief Sequoya invented writing for his people. Still others claim that language is genetically encoded in the human mind. What does seem clear is that all human abilities, including language, derive from identifiable sources - genes and environment. The idea that language is exclusively a product of our environment is as simplistic and wrong as the opposite idea that language grows like hair, shaped by our genes with no learning involved. Language, like human reasoning, is surely the result of both of these sources working together, although the relative proportions of each are more difficult to determine.
My own views about human language are sometimes disputed, but this does not make them less worthy of consideration. One of my goals is to give alternatives a fair hearing, even if I ultimately reject them. In the process, it is sometimes necessary to make an argument opposing one particular view; this is standard scientific discourse and vital for progress. So long as we are polite and our evidence is valid, it is a healthy practice.
I would define language as a 'cultural tool'. And in order to understand this cultural tool properly, we need to understand something about its original birthplace on the African plains. In addition, we must examine the relationship between language and culture in as many different linguistic groups as possible over the course of history. Then there is the issue of genetic influence on language. Those who support the influence of genes often ask, if language is not genetic, why is it such a universal human characteristic? This is an area that many people feel passionately about. Even among scientists it is sometimes supposed that all languages are 'equal in some way, and any suggestion to the contrary is not popular.
However, as I have gone further into the issues, it has become clear that there is limited evidence that language is genetic. This does not mean that language speakers are not equal, but some languages are remarkably complex in terms of their form and framework - the tense systems, the parts of speech - and this is not true of some other languages. It is just not necessary for all languages to have the same form. Languages have developed over time to meet the requirements of their own cultural situation. And the beauty of each one lies in the fact that it is so well suited to its own purposes.
So what do researchers need now? Much of the heated opinion in the debate about relative language complexity is actually irrelevant, for the simple reason that we do not have enough practical information about the languages in use today. And in order to gather such details, it is necessary for researchers to do fieldwork. Increasingly, the evidence points away from the idea that languages can be understood by sitting at a desk studying formulas and equations. And while it is beyond doubt that genetics are partly responsible for human languages, we will learn most about those languages by studying how different cultures have adapted them.
