Download How Language Began: Gesture and Speech in Human Evolution

lst (print) issn 2051-9699
lst (online) issn 2051-9702
Review
How Language Began: Gesture and Speech in
Human Evolution
David McNeill (2012)
Reviewed by Ramona Kunene Nicolas
So how indeed did language evolve to present day? David McNeill presents
a gripping, alternative theory to a somewhat controversial debate that has
ranged over the centuries. The argument is that ‘language is misconstrued if
not as seen as a unity of language and gesture’ (p. 2), therefore, a theory on
the evolution of language has to consider not only gesture but also its intrinsic
and tight link to language. Based on the premise that language is inseparable
from imagery, the intention of this work is then to explore the human mind
that enabled the origin of language as well as the modifications and extensions
that followed over time until present day language. This book therefore presents the alternative hypothesis, termed the Mead’s Loop (after G. H. Mead)
that explains the gesture-speech tight unity.
After a brief overview of the different approaches to the origins of language,
McNeill slightly aligns with the gesture-first theory but only insofar as the recognition of the imagistic part is concerned. He points out that the major flaws
of the gesture-first theory are its lack of explanation of gesture other than its
presence and that speech replaces gesture. This book then begins a sequential
report on what an alternative hypothesis considers.
Using the popular ‘gesture-first’ theory of language origin as a departure
point, McNeill finds that this theory does not predict the dynamic dimension
of language. He and his ‘co-authors’ (p. 59) argue against the notion that gesture came first and reason that gesture and speech were ‘equiprimordial’ or
evolved together. Whilst they acknowledge the existence of the gesture-first
Affiliation
School of Literature, Language, and Media, Wits University, South Africa.
email: [email protected]
lst vol 3.1 2016 126–130
©2016, equinox publishing
doi : 10.1558/lst.v3i1.25813
Review 127
theory during the pre-language era, they strongly doubt that this would have
evolved to modern day language. Instead of evolving into present-day language, gesture-first language would have logically evolved to a sign language
or pantomimic form that would not require the presence of speech. In short,
the gesture-first hypothesis simply does not favor a language-speech–gesture
integration, which is the current reality of language.
Modern language definitions include gesture as an integral part and not
as an accompaniment for speech. Any theory that predicts language has to
include gesture, which up until now, have not predicted the combination of
language and gesture. Answering the question on why we gesture, McNeill
states that it has been a part of language from the very start so the evolution of
language can only be examined from this multimodal reality.
Using the Gesture Continuum, McNeill, defines a set of gestures that are
central to this thesis. Previously known as Kendon’s Continuum (McNeill,
1992), he uses the Gesture Continuum to foreground the types of gestures that
are integral to speech as well as provide explanations to the evolution of language. The Gesture Continuum (hereafter the Continuum) consists of:
Gesticulation è Language-slotted è Pantomime è Emblems, Points è Sign Languages. (p. 5)
McNeill highlights the problematic nature of the word ‘gesture’ which tends
to be used for all sorts of varied phenomena that includes visible action that
can be or not related to language. Using the Continuum, the gestures of focus
are the ones that fall under the gesticulation pole (the gestures that require the
obligatory presence of speech). He highlights that each position on the Continuum contains its own semiotic package and that at the gesticulation pole,
a ‘dual semiotic prevails, imagery and linguistic encoding of the same underlying idea in one package, the “GP” or growth point’ (pp 5–6). The growth
point, initially posited in McNeill’s earlier work (1992), is explained as the
smallest unit of the gesture-speech unity or the ‘imagery-language dialectic’
(p. 19). The growth point seems to be the initial pulse driving online thinking – for- (and while)- speaking. It is at the connection point that the static
and dynamic dimensions of language intersect. The growth point is the minimal unit of this dynamic dimension. Applying Vygotsky’s concept of a unit as
the ‘smallest component that retains the quality of a whole, this whole is the
imagery–language dialectic’ and this gives a clue as to what may have evolved
at the origin of language. The gesture and language symbols are unified in the
growth point. Gesture and speech are ‘semiotic opposites’ and ‘co-expressive’
as they express the same idea using different aspects. They also synchronize
where they are co-expressive which is crucial as it means where they meet, in
GPs, ideas are simultaneously distributed in opposite semiotic modes. This
128 Review
then gives rise to the dynamic dimension of co-speech-gesture language,
which has evolved to this present day.
McNeill attributes the return of the ‘gesture-first’ theory to the discovery of
the mirror neuron by the neuroscientists Giacomo Rizzolatti, Micheal Arbib
and colleagues in the early 1990s. Mirror neurons, found in monkeys, are presumed to be present in all primate brains, including humans. The importance
of mirror neurons is that they appear to assist humans to determine other
people’s actions and intentions, which enhances our ability to empathize and
socialize with others. Mead’s Loop, named after the twentieth-century philosopher George Herbert Mead, is offered as an alternative hypothesis to explain
the origin of language. Mead’s Loop postulated that some million years ago,
there was an evolution of the human brain. This hypothesis acknowledges the
mirror neuron circuit’s relationship in gesture-first hypotheses but also provides a significant difference in that gesture and speech were naturally selected
together or co-evolved together. In essence, Mead’s Loop rejects the notion
of the gesture-first language origin hypothesis, specifically predicting that
gesture-first theories would only land language on the pantomimic gesture or
sign language poles of the Continuum or at best, at the language-slotted position. None of these poles or positions on the continuum have an obligatory
presence of speech nor do they unify speech and gesture.
Under the compelling evidence that ‘gesture and speech comprise a single
multimodal system’ (p. 64), McNeill tests the Mead’s Loop hypothesis as
an alternative adaptation in the evolution of humans. Mead’s Loop seeks to
explain how the imagery-language dialectic and the GP could have been naturally selected from the beginning of language. To better appreciate Mead’s
Loop, McNeill explains this alternative hypothesis using the gesture-first as a
departure point. Mead’s Loop states that gesture was essential in the beginning
of language, similar to ‘gesture-first’ theories but differs in that it sees gesture
and speech to have incepted together or in other words, are ‘equiprimordial’
from the get go. Mead’s Loop, correspondingly to gesture-first hypothesis,
posits mirror neuron circuits which, unlike in gesture-first theories, evolved
and were ‘twisted’ to have a new social referencing property. This then allowed
gesture and its imagery to be more readily available in the brain’s Broca area,
the region for complex action orchestrations particular to speech, expression,
and other language production.
McNeill argues that Mead’s Loop can justify how the dual semiotic of an
imagery–language dialectic as well as the growth point could have been naturally selected at the beginning of language. He also highlights the two types of
mirror neurons, the straight ‘untwisted’ mirror neurons which are activated by
responding to the actions of others as if they were their own; and the ‘twisted’
mirror neurons whose social referencing is to respond to one’s own actions as
Review 129
if they were from another. An example of straight mirror neurons would be
when one area of the mirror neuron system exhibits greater activation in our
brains when we observe someone picking up a glass to have a drink than when
we watch the same person picking it up to clear it from a table.
According to McNeill, these mirror neurons in Mead’s Loop were ‘twisted’
to respond to one’s own gestures as if they were from someone else (p. 65).
The author argues that this led to two important developments, first, by giving
one’s own gesture a feeling of being ‘social and public’. Second, through mirroring one’s own gestures and their significance, the newly evolved ‘twisted’
mirror neurons activated gesture and its imagery in Broca’s area. McNeill’s
argument is that Mead’s Loop allows the synchronization of speech and gesture to the point where they co-express the same idea.
Mead’s Loop created conditions that had direct and indirect causal effects
found in modern language, effects that affect the ‘mental, actional, artistic and
social’ (p. 114). This public and social integration, he argues, allows Mead’s
Loop to give one’s own gestures an importance in natural selection. This led
to cultural norms, which were passed on from adults to children, in particular
from the women caregivers who instructed infants.
McNeill’s alternative language origin hypothesis, like other origin hypotheses, makes for profound reflection on our phylogenetic beginnings. It stands
out from current existing theories, which simply ignore an important part of
language, the co-speech-gesture ensemble. This work convincingly supports
the integrated link of gesture-speech unity and shakes the foundation of existing theories, which either completely exclude gesture or believe speech ‘supplanted’ gesture. Although it sometimes gets bogged down with rather jargon
terminology, it is quite easy to follow the rationale and argument of the various points. What I found to be absolutely enjoyable in this thesis is the writer’s
ability to present a sometimes tedious topic in an easy, conversational manner
whilst dealing with thought provoking issues of evolution.
Empirical evidence and literature from neuroscience, paleontology and
cognition, allows one to understand and follow the logic and the rationale of
this alternative hypothesis of the origin of language. However, like several theories on the phylogeny of language, this alternative hypothesis is underlined
by the assumption of the validity of the Darwinian theory of evolution, which
shows the ‘hypothetical’ evolution of man from his primate ancestors, a view
which is still debatable. Some questions are left unanswered or in need of further clarification such as why ‘twisted’ mirror neurons evolve from straight
‘untwisted’ mirror neurons or what other physiological factors may have
added to the modern ‘untwisted’ mirror neurons. Although some answers are
not clearly resolved, McNeill provides convincing support for both types of
mirror neurons with straightforward examples and support.
130 Review
In conclusion, this alternative theory of how language began is a compelling
and enjoyable read. In particular, for the first time in the theories of language
origin, it considers the very important, intrinsic and integral part of language
– co-speech gesture. If the ‘dual semiosis’ of speech and imagery are so tightly
linked, how could they have possibly evolved separately? McNeill’s book convincingly shows that wherever and however language evolved, speech and gesture originated together. McNeill’s expertise in studying gestures and speech
over a substantial number of years will definitely bring a new perspective in
the academic debates on the question of language evolution.
References
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.