sign in sign up
<<
Home , Mirror neuron

lst (print) issn 2051-9699 lst (online) issn 2051-9702 Review

How 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 of this work is then to explore the human mind that enabled the as well as the modifications and extensions that followed over time until present day language. This book therefore pres- ents 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 rec- ognition 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 ges- ture 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 doi : 10.1558/lst.v3i1.25813 ©2016, equinox publishing 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 lan- guage, 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 lan- guage. The Gesture Continuum (hereafter the Continuum) consists of: Gesticulation è Language-slotted è Pantomime è Emblems, Points è Sign Lan- guages. (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 Con- tinuum contains its own semiotic package and that at the gesticulation pole, a ‘dual semiotic prevails, imagery and linguistic encoding of the same under- lying 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 think- ing – for- (and while)- speaking. It is at the connection point that the static and dynamic dimensions of language intersect. The growth point is the mini- mal 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 by the , Micheal Arbib and colleagues in the early 1990s. Mirror , found in monkeys, are pre- sumed to be present in all brains, including humans. The importance of mirror neurons is that they appear to assist humans to determine other people’s actions and , which enhances our ability to empathize and socialize with others. Mead’s Loop, named after the twentieth-century philos- opher 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 . This hypothesis acknowledges the mirror neuron circuit’s relationship in gesture-first hypotheses but also pro- vides 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 posi- tion. 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 nat- urally 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 natu- rally 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 mir- roring 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 ges- ture 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 . McNeill’s alternative language origin hypothesis, like other origin hypoth- eses, 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 exist- ing theories, which either completely exclude gesture or believe speech ‘sup- planted’ gesture. Although it sometimes gets bogged down with rather jargon terminology, it is quite easy to follow the rationale and argument of the vari- ous 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 the- ories 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 fur- ther 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 con- vincingly shows that wherever and however language evolved, speech and ges- ture 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.