How did human language originate?

[untermensche]

The theory arose from studying the fossil record.

The record is not clean and smooth and perfect as you would like.

It is bumpy and chaotic with big changes occurring periodically.

So because substrates may, or, may not harbor fossils Gould concludes evolution is punctuate. What a mind, communist mind, he had. I suspect he would have gotten on famously with The Donald.

So you admit you simply use your imagination to create fossils that don't exist to make your religious scheme of nice perfect and smooth change work.

Gould had an intellect above the primitive American: "Capitalism good, Communism bad!"

He never said he was a Communist.

He actually read Marx though and thought Marx had many good ideas. Especially his criticisms of European capitalism of his day.

But Gould read everybody.

Saying he read Marx is saying very little.

And what about Niles Eldredge? Punctuated Equilibrium is as much his theory as it is Gould's.

Why do you only mention Gould? And then never accurately represent his ideas or talk about his collaborators?

The imaginative application of agency to genes has yielded fruit.

But it has nothing to do with how evolution actually works where agency is where it can only be, in interaction.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Humans and Neanderthals both have vocal cords that allow for advanced vocal gymnastics. Other primates don't.

I think they could speak to each other like we do.

I belong to the camp that thinks that the way we conquered the Neanderthals was by being better at starving. Neanderthals used more energy than we do. We're also capable of eating a wider range of foods. Neanderthals were very specialised to hunting.

They could make noises.

That is not human language, as I have said several times.

Human language has an underlying hierarchical structure, an innate "grammar" that controls behind the scenes, below the surface, that the user of human language doesn't even know exists.

We do not see the innovativeness in Neanderthal to suggest it had more than a measure of communication with sound. No language. No capacity to understand human language. No underlying hierarchical processes to make sense of human language.

You have zero arguments for this. They had almost the exact same vocal chords than we did. Your only evidence for that humans can can speak is that we're doing it today. If you'd go on neolithic evidence you'd have zero evidence for human ability to communicate. All we've got is art and burial rituals. Which is virtually identical to what neanderthals had.

We've found Neanderthal "tool kits" identical to contemporary humans. These were complicated to make and maintain. That is evidence of knowledge being passed on and a degree of education. Yes, monkeys can also teach their young to use tools. But not to this degree. The evidence for human ingenuity is identical to neanderthals.

The only thing humans have that is unique to it was the atl-atl. Which we don't know why it didn't catch on among the neanderthals. Could it possibly have to do with that they were considerably stronger than humans? They would have been a lot more capable than us at hunting with spears.

Whenever modern humans entered into a habitat the first thing that went was all the mega-fauna. Human populations would explode, and then shrink. We don't have to be geniuses to figure out the causal link here. Neanderthals were specialized hunters, who consumed a hell of a lot more calories than us (due to their greater muscle mass). When their main prey disappeared, they were shit out of luck. Humans can scrape by on a lot of things. And for reasons we don't know, humans could out breed them.

In the last known settlement of neanderthals, in the Gorham cave in Gibraltar, we found oyster shells, mussel shells and fish bones. So the neanderthals could obviously figure out how to do that. Fishing requires specialized tools, which they obviously figured out how to make.

The idea that neanderthals were stupid, is pure speculation. Maybe. Maybe not. The fact that we could interbreed, I think suggests that they were on par with us.

 

[untermensche]

You have zero arguments for this. They had almost the exact same vocal chords than we did. Your only evidence for that humans can can speak is that we're doing it today. If you'd go on neolithic evidence you'd have zero evidence for human ability to communicate. All we've got is art and burial rituals. Which is virtually identical to what neanderthals had.

We've found Neanderthal "tool kits" identical to contemporary humans. These were complicated to make and maintain. That is evidence of knowledge being passed on and a degree of education. Yes, monkeys can also teach their young to use tools. But not to this degree. The evidence for human ingenuity is identical to neanderthals.

The only thing humans have that is unique to it was the atl-atl. Which we don't know why it didn't catch on among the neanderthals. Could it possibly have to do with that they were considerably stronger than humans? They would have been a lot more capable than us at hunting with spears.

Whenever modern humans entered into a habitat the first thing that went was all the mega-fauna. Human populations would explode, and then shrink. We don't have to be geniuses to figure out the causal link here. Neanderthals were specialized hunters, who consumed a hell of a lot more calories than us (due to their greater muscle mass). When their main prey disappeared, they were shit out of luck. Humans can scrape by on a lot of things. And for reasons we don't know, humans could out breed them.

In the last known settlement of neanderthals, in the Gorham cave in Gibraltar, we found oyster shells, mussel shells and fish bones. So the neanderthals could obviously figure out how to do that. Fishing requires specialized tools, which they obviously figured out how to make.

The idea that neanderthals were stupid, is pure speculation. Maybe. Maybe not. The fact that we could interbreed, I think suggests that they were on par with us.

...For decades, monkeys’ and apes’ vocal anatomy has been blamed for their inability to reproduce human speech sounds, but a new study suggests macaque monkeys—and by extension, other primates—could indeed talk if they only possessed the brain wiring to do so...

The results suggest that, anatomically speaking, macaques are perfectly well equipped for humanlike speech, the researchers report today in Science Advances. And because their vocal anatomy is nearly identical to that of other monkeys and apes—and to most other mammals—these animals are “speech-ready,” too,

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/12/why-monkeys-can-t-talk-and-what-they-would-sound-if-they-could

Baboons use vowel sounds strikingly similar to humans

Their analysis of the calls revealed something the other research had not: that the baboons produced at least five distinct sounds that correspond to vowels in the International Phonetic Alphabet, the authors report today in PLOS ONE. That’s enough to put them on par with many human languages, most of which have three to five vowels, though some have as many as 24.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/baboons-show-they-ve-got-another-building-block-language-vowellike-sounds

The argument that language arises because of vocal cords or the ability to make sounds like humans can make sounds is disputed.

Language is a cognitive capacity, not a physical ability to make sounds.

And Neanderthal do not show the features an animal with this cognitive capacity should have, namely innovation.

 

[lpetrich]

If it is easy using a recursive process to create a system of understanding that allows for infinite expression and comprehension then a single mutation could perhaps do it.

It would have to build on something pre-existing. That's how evolution works.

Here are some posts where I explain how recursion can make an infinity of possibilities. I mean infinity in the strict mathematical sense, not an informal sense of a very large but finite number.

#8
I introduce a simple example of recursion making possible an infinity of possibilities.

#62
Chimps making two-sign phrases and what happens when one tries to extend that. Recursion eventually becomes easier. I also have some following posts on the extent of chimp language and on human language development.

#73
Evidence that some singing birds and whales use well-defined syntactical rules. Followed by a post on the linguistic abilities of elephants and dolphins.

#76
Phylogeny of language development -- very scattered over Amniota.

 

[untermensche]

If it is easy using a recursive process to create a system of understanding that allows for infinite expression and comprehension then a single mutation could perhaps do it.

It would have to build on something pre-existing. That's how evolution works.

Here are some posts where I explain how recursion can make an infinity of possibilities. I mean infinity in the strict mathematical sense, not an informal sense of a very large but finite number.

#8
I introduce a simple example of recursion making possible an infinity of possibilities.

#62
Chimps making two-sign phrases and what happens when one tries to extend that. Recursion eventually becomes easier. I also have some following posts on the extent of chimp language and on human language development.

#73
Evidence that some singing birds and whales use well-defined syntactical rules. Followed by a post on the linguistic abilities of elephants and dolphins.

#76
Phylogeny of language development -- very scattered over Amniota.

Chimpanzees can create two-word signs.

Humans can create and understand infinite expressions.

If you can't see a clear difference, a difference in quality, not quantity, I can't help you.

Chomsky talks about recursion, go to the Wikipedia article on recursion and his name is mentioned in connection to language. Chomsky talks about song birds and whales. They have sound outputs that are similar in structure to human language. Chomsky uses them as evidence that things like human language do arise from time to time. Nothing that makes animal communication the same thing as human language.

You seem completely ignorant of any of Chomsky's work.

 

[fromderinside]

So because substrates may, or, may not harbor fossils Gould concludes evolution is punctuate. What a mind, communist mind, he had. I suspect he would have gotten on famously with The Donald.

Why do you only mention Gould? And then never accurately represent his ideas or talk about his collaborators?

Wow. Mentioning Gould's politicism really sets you off. Boom.

 

[fromderinside]

It would have to build on something pre-existing. That's how evolution works.

Here are some posts where I explain how recursion can make an infinity of possibilities. I mean infinity in the strict mathematical sense, not an informal sense of a very large but finite number.

#8
I introduce a simple example of recursion making possible an infinity of possibilities.

#62
Chimps making two-sign phrases and what happens when one tries to extend that. Recursion eventually becomes easier. I also have some following posts on the extent of chimp language and on human language development.

#73
Evidence that some singing birds and whales use well-defined syntactical rules. Followed by a post on the linguistic abilities of elephants and dolphins.

#76
Phylogeny of language development -- very scattered over Amniota.

Chimpanzees can create two-word signs.

Humans can create and understand infinite expressions.

If you can't see a clear difference, a difference in quality, not quantity, I can't help you.

Chomsky talks about recursion, go to the Wikipedia article on recursion and his name is mentioned in connection to language. Chomsky talks about song birds and whales. They have sound outputs that are similar in structure to human language. Chomsky uses them as evidence that things like human language do arise from time to time. Nothing that makes animal communication the same thing as human language.

You seem completely ignorant of any of Chomsky's work.

Oh, and there's your Chomsky worship too. Why don't you ever admit long term memory is a recursive process too, one that exists in many extant species. in type form. at least. Blank slate-ists, both of them.

 

[DrZoidberg]

And Neanderthal do not show the features an animal with this cognitive capacity should have, namely innovation.

Neanderthal neolithic tool kits prove you wrong. They made clothes and everything. I doubt any hominid without creative and innovative minds could survive in harsh ice age winter climates.

Unless you provide evidence from the stone age where humans possessed a technology that neanderthals didn't have, I can't see how you have an argument. I only know of the atl-atl. The rest was shared technology and shared mastery.

The main problem is that we're low on evidence in general. What that does is that we need to be humble no matter our theory. But claims of human specialness have not fared so well in the research. Denisovans also survived quite cheerfully in the ice age tundra of Siberia. Suggesting a capacity for innovation and forward planning.

- - - Updated - - -

You seem completely ignorant of any of Chomsky's work.

Ehe... he's not without his critics. There's quite a few big names who have had a go at Chomsky.

 

[untermensche]

Why do you only mention Gould? And then never accurately represent his ideas or talk about his collaborators?

Wow. Mentioning Gould's politicism really sets you off. Boom.

Ignorance sets me off to correct it.

Hard for you to imagine?

Oh, and there's your Chomsky worship too. Why don't you ever admit long term memory is a recursive process too, one that exists in many extant species. in type form. at least. Blank slate-ists, both of them.

Ignoring Chomsky is just more ignorance. Deliberate ignorance. As bad as it gets.

 

[untermensche]

Neanderthal neolithic tool kits prove you wrong. They made clothes and everything. I doubt any hominid without creative and innovative minds could survive in harsh ice age winter climates.

Unless you provide evidence from the stone age where humans possessed a technology that neanderthals didn't have, I can't see how you have an argument. I only know of the atl-atl. The rest was shared technology and shared mastery.

The main problem is that we're low on evidence in general. What that does is that we need to be humble no matter our theory. But claims of human specialness have not fared so well in the research. Denisovans also survived quite cheerfully in the ice age tundra of Siberia. Suggesting a capacity for innovation and forward planning.

- - - Updated - - -

You seem completely ignorant of any of Chomsky's work.

Ehe... he's not without his critics. There's quite a few big names who have had a go at Chomsky.

Show me this evidence of Neanderthal clothing.

And one of Diamond's points in his description of Cro-Magnons (humans) "Great Leap Forward" is that Cro-Magnons had something that gave them the ability to easily kill off all the Neanderthal and take over all their territory.

They had far more innovativeness than Neanderthal.

Neanderthal did not have this innovativeness. Most likely they did not have anything close to human language. They merely had some kind of animal communication which does not "grow" into human language. Human language is something else entirely.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Show me this evidence of Neanderthal clothing.

Oh, come on. They survived in the harsh ice age winters with no fur. How in the hell could they have survived without clothing? Neanderthals had more muscle mass than us, and therefore lost heat faster. Wearing clothes would have been even more critical for neanderthals than humans. If we can't run around naked in the European winter, then neanderthals sure as hell couldn't.

But following your logic homo sapiens hadn't either figured out how to make clothes back then. We have found zero homo sapiens remains complete with clothing that are contemporary with neanderthals. The oldest clothing we've found is 8000 year old Oreganian sandals. 5000 years old beaded dress in Egypt. And then Ötzi who died on a glacier the same time. We have very little evidence of any clothing before this. It's not until From about 1000 BC we start getting enough remains from which to draw any conclusions about what was common for people to wear.

We do have evidence of shoes permanently deforming the foot bones of humans as early as 40 000 years ago. This suggests leather shoes tightly bound to the foot. But we have zero evidence of this among any arctic homo sapien remains. But we know they must have had some sort of footwear, of they'd keep getting frostbite. They just didn't have them tightly bound to the foot.

Add to that that we've found very few neanderthal remains all together. Anything perishable isn't likely to survive. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

But what we have found is neanderthal stone age tool kits. They must have had some use for all the bone needles they crafted. Sewing clothing perhaps?

And one of Diamond's points in his description of Cro-Magnons (humans) "Great Leap Forward" is that Cro-Magnons had something that gave them the ability to easily kill off all the Neanderthal and take over all their territory.

They had far more innovativeness than Neanderthal.

Neanderthal did not have this innovativeness. Most likely they did not have anything close to human language. They merely had some kind of animal communication which does not "grow" into human language. Human language is something else entirely.

The Third Chimpanzee was published in 1991. A lot has happened since then. Your references are out of date.

 

[untermensche]

Oh, come on. They survived in the harsh ice age winters with no fur. How in the hell could they have survived without clothing? Neanderthals had more muscle mass than us, and therefore lost heat faster. Wearing clothes would have been even more critical for neanderthals than humans. If we can't run around naked in the European winter, then neanderthals sure as hell couldn't.

I didn't say they didn't have clothing. But there is nothing to show innovativeness in terms of clothing.

You can't claim Neanderthal had the rapid innovativeness we see in humans in terms of clothing.

And one of Diamond's points in his description of Cro-Magnons (humans) "Great Leap Forward" is that Cro-Magnons had something that gave them the ability to easily kill off all the Neanderthal and take over all their territory.

They had far more innovativeness than Neanderthal.

Neanderthal did not have this innovativeness. Most likely they did not have anything close to human language. They merely had some kind of animal communication which does not "grow" into human language. Human language is something else entirely.

The Third Chimpanzee was published in 1991. A lot has happened since then. Your references are out of date.

I don't think the basic facts have changed.

A very rapid expansion of humans out of Africa to fill the planet which included the extinction of Neanderthal and taking over the places Neanderthal were living. There is also evidence of another species in East Asia that either went extinct on it's own or due to human expansion.

What has changed about this?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I didn't say they didn't have clothing. But there is nothing to show innovativeness in terms of clothing.

You can't claim Neanderthal had the rapid innovativeness we see in humans in terms of clothing.

No. But I can claim that homosapiens didn't have rapid innovatiness in their clothing during this period either. Which is based on the very basic clothing found on Ötzi in 3500 BC. Is this evidence that humans aren't intelligent? The fact that we later got fancy clothing doesn't mean we suddenly became more intelligent.

I don't think the basic facts have changed.

A very rapid expansion of humans out of Africa to fill the planet which included the extinction of Neanderthal and taking over the places Neanderthal were living. There is also evidence of another species in East Asia that either went extinct on it's own or due to human expansion.

What has changed about this?

The biggest thing is the genetic research. Back then we hadn't even sequenced the entire human DNA. We sure as hell hadn't sequenced the entire neanderthal DNA. Back then we didn't even have the necessary samples to do such a thing. We now have. Not to mention all the genetic studies that have gone on since.

Most critically we have since figured out that the Foxp2 gene is critical for human speech. Monkeys and chimpanzees don't have it. Neanderthals and denisovans do. Exactly in what way the gene is critical is debatable. But the presence of the gene suggests that we can't simply dismiss neanderthal speech.

We've also learned since that humans and neanderthals interbred. Back in 1991 we thought neanderthals and humans were so different they couldn't interbreed. Also humans and denisovans. Diamond didn't know that. We've also found neanderthals with healed broken bones. Evidence that they cared for their sick. Neanderthals likely traded with one another, and with humans. Since then we've also found neanderthal art, and burials. All this is information that Diamond wouldn't have had access to.

We've also learned that a bunch of things attributed to early humans, especially religion is highly dubious speculation. For example, one region we thought they'd placed flowers in graves. Turns out they were placed their by a local rodent. So early humans weren't nearly as advanced as they thought back in 1991. A lot of what we thought we knew about early humans, it turns out we didn't know.

But most importantly, the most complete stone age human we've ever found, Ötzi, was found after the Third Chimpanzee was published. That find radically changed what we'd earlier thought about stone age humans.

The truth is that a hell of a lot has happened since 1991. Especially regarding our view of neanderthals. We don't any longer see them as ataivistic savages. What we're struggling with now is explaining why they died out in spite of their comparative brains with us.

They could have died out because they differed from us mentally. They could have been worse at lying for instance? They could have had instincts propelling them toward a more cooperative and less aggressive behaviour than us. Enter a highly aggressive primate with comparative mental faculties and it'll just be a matter of time. There's just so much we don't know.

 

[untermensche]

No. But I can claim that homosapiens didn't have rapid innovatiness in their clothing during this period either. Which is based on the very basic clothing found on Ötzi in 3500 BC. Is this evidence that humans aren't intelligent? The fact that we later got fancy clothing doesn't mean we suddenly became more intelligent.

Having basic clothing is not showing a lack of innovation. What shows a lack of innovation is a lack of changes to that basic clothing over time.

Using the tools that Neanderthal were using shows a lack of innovation.

Most critically we have since figured out that the Foxp2 gene is critical for human speech. Monkeys and chimpanzees don't have it. Neanderthals and denisovans do. Exactly in what way the gene is critical is debatable. But the presence of the gene suggests that we can't simply dismiss neanderthal speech.

The FOXP2 gene is highly conserved in mammals.[40] Human gene differs from non-human primates by the substitution of two amino acids, threonine to asparagine substitution at position 303 (T303N) and asparagine to serine substitution at position 325 (N325S).[31] In mice it differs from that of humans by three substitutions, and in zebra finch by seven amino acids.[16][41][42] One of the two amino acid difference between human and chimps also arose independently in carnivores and bats.[12][43] Similar FOXP2 proteins can be found in songbirds, fish, and reptiles such as alligators.[44][45]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOXP2

The FOXP2 gene is needed for normal brain development.

Of course normal brain development is needed for language acquisition.

That doesn't mean FOXP2 is specific for language.

And humans breeding with Neanderthal is not surprising. Humans have been caught fucking chickens.

Probably adult humans capturing and raping young Neanderthal females.

It is not evidence Neanderthal had the human language capacity.

The fact that Neanderthal were replaced so quickly suggests they don't.

 

[fromderinside]

Wow. Mentioning Gould's politicism really sets you off. Boom.

Ignorance sets me off to correct it.

Hard for you to imagine?

Oh, and there's your Chomsky worship too. Why don't you ever admit long term memory is a recursive process too, one that exists in many extant species. in type form. at least. Blank slate-ists, both of them.

Ignoring Chomsky is just more ignorance. Deliberate ignorance. As bad as it gets.

I'm not ignoring. I'm discounting. Its what one does when one sees product that isn't helpful. I acknowledge they had thought. I also acknowledge they are both political animals from the Marxist left who need to discount more or less universally acknowledged understandings of relevant scientific communities to remain darlings of that left.

 

[bilby]

Ignorance sets me off to correct it.

Hard for you to imagine?

Oh, and there's your Chomsky worship too. Why don't you ever admit long term memory is a recursive process too, one that exists in many extant species. in type form. at least. Blank slate-ists, both of them.

Ignoring Chomsky is just more ignorance. Deliberate ignorance. As bad as it gets.

I'm not ignoring. I'm discounting. Its what one does when one sees product that isn't helpful. I acknowledge they had thought. I also acknowledge they are both political animals from the Marxist left who need to discount more or less universally acknowledged understandings of relevant scientific communities to remain darlings of that left.

Don't worry about it; It's futile to argue with an evangelist, or to expect him to examine his authorities critically and abandon them when they are mistaken. The high priests have spoken, and you can either believe them or be damned. There is no room for thought, criticism, or dissent.

 

[untermensche]

Ignorance sets me off to correct it.

Hard for you to imagine?

Oh, and there's your Chomsky worship too. Why don't you ever admit long term memory is a recursive process too, one that exists in many extant species. in type form. at least. Blank slate-ists, both of them.

Ignoring Chomsky is just more ignorance. Deliberate ignorance. As bad as it gets.

I'm not ignoring. I'm discounting. Its what one does when one sees product that isn't helpful. I acknowledge they had thought. I also acknowledge they are both political animals from the Marxist left who need to discount more or less universally acknowledged understandings of relevant scientific communities to remain darlings of that left.

What is it you think you have discounted?

You have no position that doesn't become laughably incoherent in three steps.

That you have sworn devotion to a fruitful error is nothing to squeal about.

You don't know what language is. You can't see the difference between futilely meager systems of animal communication and a system that grants infinite expression and comprehension.

There is nothing wrong with reading and understanding Marx. Nothing wrong with understanding he had many good ideas. To think there is shows a strange form of human willful ignorance.

 

[fromderinside]

Ignorance sets me off to correct it.

Hard for you to imagine?

Oh, and there's your Chomsky worship too. Why don't you ever admit long term memory is a recursive process too, one that exists in many extant species. in type form. at least. Blank slate-ists, both of them.

Ignoring Chomsky is just more ignorance. Deliberate ignorance. As bad as it gets.

I'm not ignoring. I'm discounting. Its what one does when one sees product that isn't helpful. I acknowledge they had thought. I also acknowledge they are both political animals from the Marxist left who need to discount more or less universally acknowledged understandings of relevant scientific communities to remain darlings of that left.

What is it you think you have discounted?

You have no position that doesn't become laughably incoherent in three steps.

That you have sworn devotion to a fruitful error is nothing to squeal about.

You don't know what language is. You can't see the difference between futilely meager systems of animal communication and a system that grants infinite expression and comprehension.

There is nothing wrong with reading and understanding Marx. Nothing wrong with understanding he had many good ideas. To think there is shows a strange form of human willful ignorance.

I've discounted both because of their biases toward blank slate basis for constructing scientific theory. in my opinion Gould sought favor with leftist elites, especially in the education community, and, I believe prostituted himself with his theoretical propositions on evolution. Similarly Chomsky props up his theories using support from Marxist elites to amplify the importance of his constructions. When both are examined one finds their theories full of logical and scientific holes.

Today my views generally are in line with Pinker's cognitive learning models and Tomasello's language as socially learned tool of communication. As evidence continues to be compiled we are finding elements of human language in bird and ape communication interactions and more recent discovery of ubiquitous presence of mirror cells in associative and sensory systems. Gould nor Chomsky's theories can accommodate this data.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Probably adult humans capturing and raping young Neanderthal females.

The opposite in that case. Since it was the neanderthal groups that disappeared. Any cross breed found in the neanderthal groups would have perished with them. Only the cross breeds found in homo sapiens groups would have survived to pass on their genes.

It is not evidence Neanderthal had the human language capacity.

The fact that Neanderthal were replaced so quickly suggests they don't.

It does? We have fairly good idea of the events that led to the neanderthal demise.

1) Whenever homo sapiens enter into an ecosystem the first thing they do is kill all the mega fauna. Which they also did in Europe.

2) The neanderthals were specialised hunters who had evolved to fit in that ecosystem with it's existing mega fauna. Due to their biology they would have been more dependent on the mega fauna.

3) With the loss of mega fauna it becomes a starving competition. Humans with their lower muscle mass would have been better at starving.

4) Humans who are adapted to eat a varied diet (the neanderthal were not) would have been better at scraping by, finding alternative sources of protein.

5) They would eventually out-breed the more muscular neanderthals. They could have beaten them by sheer numbers.

None of this suggests language was a factor in any way. Collapses of ecosystems often lead to rapid change.

 

[untermensche]

None of this suggests language was a factor in any way. Collapses of ecosystems often lead to rapid change.

Actually it does.

The neanderthals were specialised hunters who had evolved to fit in that ecosystem with it's existing mega fauna. Due to their biology they would have been more dependent on the mega fauna.

This suggests a lack of an ability to innovate. A lack of the human language capacity.