Brownegraves8515

We further add that this biological process of SD did not act alone, but was engaged in an intense feedback loop with the cultural emergence of early forms of language/grammar, whose high degree of raw metaphoricity and verbal aggression also contributed to increased brain connectivity and cortical control. Consequently, in conjunction with linguistic expressions serving as approximations/'fossils' of the earliest stages of language, these cognitive disorders/conditions serve as confident proxies of brain changes in language evolution, helping us reconstruct certain crucial aspects of early prehistoric languages and cognition, as well as shed new light on the nature of the disorders. This article is part of the theme issue 'Reconstructing prehistoric languages'.In this paper, we investigate evolutionarily recent changes in the distributions of speech sounds in the world's languages. In particular, we explore the impact of language contact in the past two millennia on today's distributions. Based on three extensive databases of phonological inventories, we analyse the discrepancies between the distribution of speech sounds of ancient and reconstructed languages, on the one hand, and those in present-day languages, on the other. Furthermore, we analyse the degree to which the diffusion of speech sounds via language contact played a role in these discrepancies. We find evidence for substantive differences between ancient and present-day distributions, as well as for the important role of language contact in shaping these distributions over time. Moreover, our findings suggest that the distributions of speech sounds across geographic macro-areas were homogenized to an observable extent in recent millennia. Our findings suggest that what we call the Implicit Uniformitarian Hypothesis, at least with respect to the composition of phonological inventories, cannot be held uncritically. Linguists who would like to draw inferences about human language based on present-day cross-linguistic distributions must consider their theories in light of even short-term language evolution. This article is part of the theme issue 'Reconstructing prehistoric languages'.This theme issue builds on the surge of interest in the field of language evolution as part of the broader field of human evolution, gathering some of the field's most prominent experts in order to achieve a deeper, richer understanding of human prehistory and the nature of prehistoric languages. Taken together, the contributions to this issue begin to outline a profile of the structural and functional features of prehistoric languages, including the type of sounds, the nature of the earliest grammars, the characteristics of the earliest vocabularies and some preferred uses, like conversation and insult. By also correlating certain specific features of language with the changes in brain organization during prehistory, the contributions to this issue directly engage the genetic and the neuroscientific aspects of human evolution and cognition. This article is part of the theme issue 'Reconstructing prehistoric languages'.Can language relatedness be established without cognate words? This question has remained unresolved since the nineteenth century, leaving language prehistory beyond etymologically established families largely undefined. We address this problem through a theory of universal syntactic characters. We show that not only does syntax allow for comparison across distinct traditional language families, but that the probability of deeper historical relatedness between such families can be statistically tested through a dedicated algorithm which implements the concept of 'possible languages' suggested by a formal syntactic theory. Controversial clusters such as e.g. buy Isoproterenol sulfate Altaic and Uralo-Altaic are significantly supported by our test, while other possible macro-groupings, e.g. Indo-Uralic or Basque-(Northeast) Caucasian, prove to be indistinguishable from a randomly generated distribution of language distances. These results suggest that syntactic diversity, modelled through a generative biolinguistic framework, can be used to provide a proof of historical relationship between different families irrespectively of the presence of a common lexicon from which regular sound correspondences can be determined; therefore, we argue that syntax may expand the time limits imposed by the classical comparative method. This article is part of the theme issue 'Reconstructing prehistoric languages'.The aim of this paper is twofold to propose that conversation is the distinctive feature of Homo sapiens' communication; and to show that the emergence of modern language is tied to the transition from pantomime to verbal and grammatically complex forms of narrative. It is suggested that (animal and human) communication is a form of persuasion and that storytelling was the best tool developed by humans to convince others. In the early stage of communication, archaic hominins used forms of pantomimic storytelling to persuade others. Although pantomime is a powerful tool for persuasive communication, it is proposed that it is not an effective tool for persuasive conversation conversation is characterized by a form of reciprocal persuasion among peers; instead, pantomime has a mainly asymmetrical character. The selective pressure towards persuasive reciprocity of the conversational level is the evolutionary reason that allowed the transition from pantomime to grammatically complex codes in H. sapiens, which favoured the evolution of speech. This article is part of the theme issue 'Reconstructing prehistoric languages'.Evidence is reviewed for widespread phonological and phonetic tendencies in contemporary languages. The evidence is based largely on the frequency of sound types in word lists and in phoneme inventories across the world's languages. The data reviewed point to likely tendencies in the languages of the Upper Palaeolithic. These tendencies include the reliance on specific nasal and voiceless stop consonants, the relative dispreference for posterior voiced consonants and the use of peripheral vowels. More tenuous hypotheses related to prehistoric languages are also reviewed. These include the propositions that such languages lacked labiodental consonants and relied more heavily on vowels, when contrasted to many contemporary languages. Such hypotheses suggest speech has adapted to subtle pressures that may in some cases vary across populations. This article is part of the theme issue 'Reconstructing prehistoric languages'.