In their 2026 book, anthropologists Chris Knight and Jerome Lewis revisit the long-standing mystery of how human language began. Because the earliest spoken languages left no physical record, they combine linguistic, anthropological and archaeological evidence to argue that language emerged through social and cultural processes rather than appearing suddenly through a single genetic mutation.
The origins of writing remain uncertain, but physical evidence exists for some of its earliest forms. Marks carved on clay tablets in ancient Mesopotamia date to the fourth millennium B.C. By contrast, no physical evidence survives from the earliest languages thought to have been spoken in Africa, the birthplace of Homo sapiens.
This lack of direct evidence has left scholars with considerable room for speculation. Thinkers in the ancient world, including Plato, debated whether language arose naturally or was created by humans. By the 19th century, anthropologists had grown frustrated by extensive debate and little evidence.
Knight and Lewis note that the founding regulations of the Paris Linguistic Society prohibited discussion of the origins of language in 1866. “Those who theorize about the origins of language run the risk of being dismissed as eccentrics,” they write. Yet, they add, “sometimes the brave heretic risks his reputation by trying to reopen the debate.”
Linguistics
The best-known, although controversial, modern attempt to explain language’s origins came from linguist Noam Chomsky, beginning in the 1960s. The authors draw on Knight’s earlier work, including his 2016 book Decoding Chomsky, to discuss Chomsky’s contribution in detail.
In 1987, Chomsky said in Language and Knowledge: “There’s a long history of research into the origins of language, asking how they came from things like the sounds of apes.” In his view, however, such research was “a complete waste of time.”
Chomsky argued that language rests on “principles quite different from animal communication systems.” Human gestures might have evolved from animal communication, he proposed, but human language itself did not.
Research on young chimpanzees helped support this position. One prominent study began in 1973 with a chimpanzee given the punning name Nim Chimpsky. Nim was taught by human instructors to make dozens of hand signs to obtain food and other rewards, but he did not learn to communicate using American Sign Language. Knight and Lewis quote the longest recorded sequence of Nim’s signs as: “Give me an orange, eat an orange, eat an orange, eat an orange, eat an orange.”
Chimpanzee Nim Chimpsky was taught to make hand signals for food and other rewards.Credit: Mel Finkelstein/NY Daily News Archive/Getty
In Chomsky’s view, human language appeared suddenly through a single genetic mutation, rather than through Darwinian natural selection or gradual adaptive cultural processes. Knight and Lewis argue that he consequently framed linguistics as a scientific problem within anthropology, describing language as “a particularly interesting and mysterious aspect of the natural world, to be studied using the usual methods of the natural sciences.”
But the authors also point to a difficulty with this approach: “there are no measuring instruments, magnifying glasses, telescopes, or other instruments that can determine the meaning of words.” They ask how conventional science can study language when its central features cannot be directly measured in this way.
A social origin
Rejecting Chomsky’s account, Knight and Lewis present a combination of scientific and cultural evidence for their own theory. Much of this evidence comes from prehistoric and modern Africa, where Lewis spent 30 years studying hunter-gatherers, particularly the Bayaka people of Central Africa.
“To qualify as science, a hypothesis must suggest testable predictions,” the authors write. Since direct evidence of events in the distant past cannot be recovered, researchers must “construct tests from a wide range of obvious clues.” These clues include “the recurring structure of magical myths, initiation rites, hunter taboos, patterns of menstrual prohibition, lunar and solar influences, and, importantly, archaeological evidence of symbolism in the form of red ocher pigments and ornaments.” The book examines all of these, in a discussion that is wide-ranging but engaging.
Anthropologists have often proposed that speech and language developed from hunting or warfare. Knight and Lewis reject both explanations. When hunter-gatherers hunt in forests, they argue, they “do everything in their power not to have to speak loudly” and risk attracting animals. Instead, they use signs to warn one another when animals such as gorillas, antelopes, leopards and elephants are nearby.
Source: www.nature.com