[.uk] From Hand to Mouth: The Origins of Language (ISBN 0691116733)

Quite interesting:
It may seem unusual for a psychologist to publish a book on linguistics and the origins of human language, but Michael Corballis has produced an intriguing work full of speculation and theory. The author asks an essential question--why did it take modern humans ("modern" meaning the last 150,000 years or so) such a long time to develop a fully spoken language? He theorizes that we may have had the potential for spoken language for as long as a million years (hardwired into our brains) but we only began significant utilization of that ability around 50,000 years ago. What was the catalyst that pushed ancient man from a mostly manual language to a spoken one? According to the author, it was a largely cultural development spurred on by numerous factors, including (but not limited to) increased socialization among early humans. Spoken language is a far more effective medium than a manual one, and early man quickly discovered that in the highly competitive world of Ice-Age Europe, vocal socialization, with its easy exchange of ideas and new technologies, may have been the difference between survival and extinction. Another point of interest: there may have been a prehistoric "Renaissance" in art and early technology at this time, perhaps resulting from our newfound linguistic abilities. Also, genetic evidence from that time period suggests divergence in the human genome; could our newborn use of language have been a factor? However, recent evidence may undermine (or significantly alter) the socialization/culture theory. The discovery of the FOXP2 gene, which seems to control the articulation of words and grammar, may have appeared in humans as far back as 2.5 to 3 million years ago. (Interestingly, Neanderthals may also have possessed this mutation, meaning that they, too may have been capable of speech--adding fuel to the debate over how they died out). I believe this book was published before this discovery was revealed. Yet there may still be room for Corballis' theory and similar ideas, even with this new information. Perhaps the mutation gave us the potential, but maybe it took the pressures of survival coupled with the increased social interactions of people living in close proximity to fully trigger it. Of course, we haven't completely lost our manual tendencies; think about how much hand gestures factor into conversations. His narrow focus--on European humans--limits the scope of his argument, ignoring both trans-European people and those still dwelling in Africa. The culture/socialization-as-language-catalyst is not a new argument, but what makes Corballis' approach unique is his incorporation of some unusual factors, such as lateralization and handedness (i.e. left or right, and his ideas about the origin of left-handedness are quite interesting). His writing style, full of sharp, dry wit, clever analogies, and innumerable references from related fields (such as neurology and linguistics) makes his approach more engaging that similar accounts I've read, and although he sometimes covers familiar ground, he does so with energy and enthusiasm. There's as much of interest here for the anthropologist as for the linguist.

Worthwhile.:
Corballis assembles evidence in favor of the theory that sophisticated gestural language (as contrasted to "proto-language") preceded spoken language. Certainly, this makes great intuitive sense, since there is a steady increase over time in genus homo in that part of the brain which controls language, whether it be gestural or vocal, and this preceded the evolution of fine vocal capabilities. Moreover, it is intuitive that gestures come more naturally, and with use would become more expressive and "conventionalized". On the other hand, while tool making became more sophisticated with the Acheulian technology, found in sites as old as 1.4 million years ago, the real flowering of tools, art, religion was more likely around 50,000 years ago, when the capability for fine vocalization already existed, suggesting, as many scientists have concluded, that there may have been a major leap forward at that time in speech and conceptualization (cf. Turner, Mark and Gilles Fauconnier: "The Way We Think"). So how worthwhile is "From Hand to Mouth"? Much of the writing is good, I enjoy Corballis' many wisecracks, and he examines what is known in the many relevant subject areas. Although he tries to be fair, he can be sloppy. While he cites Jared Diamond's "Third Chimpanzee", he repeats the conclusions some scientist's have drawn from the development of the numerous "creole's", without mentioning, as Diamond does, the possible flaw in reaching such conclusions. At other times, he makes assumptions without realizing he is doing so. Thus, in mammals, right limbs are controlled by the left side of the brain, and visa versa. This is not an inevitable specialization as Corballis thinks, but may owe more to how evolution frequently works: if designed from scratch, it might be more efficient to have both sets of limbs controlled from the same brain area. The Corballis chapter on right brain vs left brain suffers very much from lack of reference to the work of a noted neurologist, reported in a great book: , "Phantoms in the Brain" by Ramachandran. Incidentally, the role of the FOXP2 gene in speech (see earlier reviewer) is quite controversial. "From Hand to Mouth" is definitely worthwhile, but a better book on the subject will undoubtedly be written.

A brief comment on From Hand to Mouth:
Both this latest work and his earlier "The Lopsided Ape" are excellent presentations by their author on topics that include, laterality of the CNS,sinistrality,anthropology and language. The books are an excellent source for references and further indepth reading. James L. Franklin, M.D.