What do you think?
Rate this book
Eve Spoke: Human Language and Human Evolution
If we were to summon the first man and woman from their prehistoric graves, what would they―indeed, what could they―say to us? The human imagination never ceases to be captivated by the quest for its own roots. Who were our ancestors? In the evolutionary clash of brains and brawn, what was it that prevailed and made us, Homo sapiens, uniquely human? Today scientists cite language as the distinctively human feature. But what is language―a sign, a grunt? a sound with collective symbolic meaning? This remarkable book seeks to set the record straight with a critical refinement of the language theory, providing us for the first time with a scientific explanation of how Eve came to speak at all.
Wrestling with the age-old question of why such a large gulf exists between humans and other animals, Philip Lieberman mines both the fossil record and modern neuroscientific techniques to chart the development of the anatomy and brain mechanisms necessary for human language as we know it. Eschewing any notion of a language gene or instinct, he pursues instead an evolutionary path in which environment acts on a biological capacity to reveal the interconnectedness of systems that make us most human: precise motor skills, speech, language, and complex thought. Eve Spoke challenges the dominant scientific theories of language's origins and forges a new understanding of the role of language in our evolution.
Wrestling with the age-old question of why such a large gulf exists between humans and other animals, Philip Lieberman mines both the fossil record and modern neuroscientific techniques to chart the development of the anatomy and brain mechanisms necessary for human language as we know it. Eschewing any notion of a language gene or instinct, he pursues instead an evolutionary path in which environment acts on a biological capacity to reveal the interconnectedness of systems that make us most human: precise motor skills, speech, language, and complex thought. Eve Spoke challenges the dominant scientific theories of language's origins and forges a new understanding of the role of language in our evolution.
Hardcover
First published January 1, 1998
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
September 21, 2025
Eve Spoke, Philip Lieberman, 1998, 192 pp., ISBN 0393040895, Library-of-Congress P116, Dewey 401.
By 150,000 years ago, our ancestors had the [hyoid bone in the] tongue, enabling speech. p. xiii. [Apes don't have it. A Neanderthal skeleton with a hyoid bone was found in 1989. -- Frontiers: New Discoveries About Man and His Planet, Outer Space and the Universe, Isaac Asimov, 1991.]
The author knocks down a straw man, "humans evolved separately in many places." p. 6. The author admits that Neanderthals spoke. p. 8.
"The larynx evolved to protect the lungs of lungfish when they swam underwater." p. 45.
"Neanderthal vocal tract could produce vowels except i, u, a, and not consonants like k and g." p. 63.
By 150,000 years ago, our ancestors had the [hyoid bone in the] tongue, enabling speech. p. xiii. [Apes don't have it. A Neanderthal skeleton with a hyoid bone was found in 1989. -- Frontiers: New Discoveries About Man and His Planet, Outer Space and the Universe, Isaac Asimov, 1991.]
The author knocks down a straw man, "humans evolved separately in many places." p. 6. The author admits that Neanderthals spoke. p. 8.
"The larynx evolved to protect the lungs of lungfish when they swam underwater." p. 45.
"Neanderthal vocal tract could produce vowels except i, u, a, and not consonants like k and g." p. 63.
March 16, 2026
Why and how mankind evolved the plumbing required for speech.
A good complement to Robbins Burling's "The Talking Ape," Stephen Pinker's "The Language Instinct," and John McWhorter's "The Power of Babel." Each has its own niche. Pinker approaches the question from the structure of the brain, and the structure of language itself. McWhorter is a linguist; he talks about how languages are put together.
Lieberman and Burling occupy themselves with the evolutionary question. How did language come about? Their works complement each other quite nicely. Lieberman examines the physiological changes that were required in the evolution of the sound production mechanism that is so unique and so characterizes Homo sapiens. Burling approaches the same question from a linguist's perspective. How could language of all in such a way that each step represented an evolutionary advantage over the prior step, but yet the overall result was a qualitative leap which he says went from analog to digital communications.
Burling advances a number of large theories. The kinds of theories that would be impossible to prove given the fact that speech leaves no historical record, and even the archaeological record of the evolution of the speech apparatus is fairly spotty.
He proposes that the evolution of language was driven by listening and perception rather than production. The ability to produce speech would have been worthless unless it was paired with listeners capable of interpreting it. Conversely, superior ability to understand utterances of other members of a social group would always be advantageous to the animal possessed of that ability. This ties in quite well with Lieberman's timeline for the development of the human speech apparatus. Lieberman goes into a lot of detail about the differences between Neanderthal and Homo sapiens' vocal tracks, evolutionary differences that occurred very recently, in the last 200,000 years or so. I believe this would make sense to Burling; the production mechanism evolved quickly once the listening mechanisms were substantially in place. Lieberman notes that the human vocal tract imposes a number of disadvantages. We're the only animal that can asphyxiate in the process of swallowing. The location of our larynx impedes airflow for maximum aerobic performance, and requires that we have smaller and less useful jaws. It could only have evolved the way it did if language had a high selective advantage.
Burling observes that that human speech is digital whereas most animal communication is analog. Words are discrete from one another; they do not fall on a continuum. Bat and bag are two different words. Our hearing apparatus may err in choosing between them, but our brain will form one concept or the other. Compare this with a baby's cry, which can vary continuously from a whimper to a full-blown scream.
Both authors address the question of why a speech is a vocal rather than a gestural matter. It is both, on both the analog and the digital side. On the analog-visual side, a smile can represent quite a continuum of emotion. On the digital-visual side you have true languages like American sign language, and gestures such as a knotted head or an extended finger. Their conclusion is practical. The vocal tract can operate quickly, can operate in the dark, and it leaves the hands free. Lieberman cites statistical analyses showing that speech is about five times faster than any other mode by which people could communicate with one another. It evolved because it was highly efficient. Primatologists have written that grooming behaviors limit group size. It takes a lot of time to maintain social hierarchies picking nits from one another. Speech makes us more efficient nit pickers.
Burling asserts that there are five specific cognitive tools that are essential to learning a language:
1. A rich conceptual understanding of the world around us.
2. Joint attention: the ability of two individuals to focus on a single object, such as a tree to which one is pointing, or a coffee cup was holding.
3. The ability to imitate. If I make a sound or a gesture, you can imitate it.
4. The ability to understand pointing gestures, and representative signals such as "big" and "small," to establish abstract thoughts that can be verbalized as adjectives and adverbs, for instance.
5. The assumption that language will be pattered and repetitive ways. For instance, in a given language the subject will precede the verb and the object will follow it, or vice versa.
People are good at this. A trained anthropologist can sit with a person whose language is totally unknown to him and figure out how to communicate within a matter of hours or days. Even our closest primate relatives are fairly weak on these abilities.
Burling addresses the evolution of the structure of language. The first major question is words. There are 60,000 or so in the average vocabulary. Where and how they are stored as a mystery that is only now being unraveled. What is clear is that no such memory and retrieval system was required when communication was largely analog. We need syntax to hold our words together in meaningful relationships. Burling talks about how elements of syntax are likely to have evolved from independent, standalone words. See the McWhorter book for a more extended discussion.
Burling is fascinated with the question as to why language provided such a strong selective advantage. In his field work in rural India he notes that most tasks within a village can be accomplished without a great deal of verbal communication. People learn those tasks involved in agriculture by observation. Deaf-mutes can master the tasks about as well as hearing people. He offers a number of theories, the most intriguing of which is sexual selection. The peacock's tail is supposed to have evolved not because it gives the male peacock any advantage in life, but simply because it is more attractive to the peahen. Other authors have posited that sexual selection is the reason that blonde hair, blue eyes, hairless bodies and large breasts crept into the human populations. There is no doubt that both men and women prefer articulate partners, and that articulate people rise to the top of any human social grouping. They will have more mating opportunities. Burling notes as well that we measure intelligence in large measure as the expression of verbal ability. Upon this premise, he would say that there is sexual selection for intelligence.
The question that led me to read these books is the assertion that McWhorter makes that human speech is only 150,000 years old. The conclusion I get from both these authors is that the 150,000 year figure applies to speech by Homo sapiens. The production mechanisms we use were available about that long ago. A lot of the mental mechanics, the word storage, the syntax, and some of the production had to be in place much earlier.
It is interesting to superimpose the 150,000 year figure over the timeline of human migrations. Most authors believe that modern humans arose in Africa about 200,000 years ago and left about 50,000 years ago. We might expect the same kinds of evolutionary differentiation in linguistic abilities that occurred in human physiognomy. Neither author addresses the question, but on the very morning that I write this review there is an article in The Economist that a Dr. Dediu and a Dr. Ladd have found genetic differences between people to speak tonal languages such as Chinese and the rest of us. There is more to be learned about this most essential character of the human animal.
A good complement to Robbins Burling's "The Talking Ape," Stephen Pinker's "The Language Instinct," and John McWhorter's "The Power of Babel." Each has its own niche. Pinker approaches the question from the structure of the brain, and the structure of language itself. McWhorter is a linguist; he talks about how languages are put together.
Lieberman and Burling occupy themselves with the evolutionary question. How did language come about? Their works complement each other quite nicely. Lieberman examines the physiological changes that were required in the evolution of the sound production mechanism that is so unique and so characterizes Homo sapiens. Burling approaches the same question from a linguist's perspective. How could language of all in such a way that each step represented an evolutionary advantage over the prior step, but yet the overall result was a qualitative leap which he says went from analog to digital communications.
Burling advances a number of large theories. The kinds of theories that would be impossible to prove given the fact that speech leaves no historical record, and even the archaeological record of the evolution of the speech apparatus is fairly spotty.
He proposes that the evolution of language was driven by listening and perception rather than production. The ability to produce speech would have been worthless unless it was paired with listeners capable of interpreting it. Conversely, superior ability to understand utterances of other members of a social group would always be advantageous to the animal possessed of that ability. This ties in quite well with Lieberman's timeline for the development of the human speech apparatus. Lieberman goes into a lot of detail about the differences between Neanderthal and Homo sapiens' vocal tracks, evolutionary differences that occurred very recently, in the last 200,000 years or so. I believe this would make sense to Burling; the production mechanism evolved quickly once the listening mechanisms were substantially in place. Lieberman notes that the human vocal tract imposes a number of disadvantages. We're the only animal that can asphyxiate in the process of swallowing. The location of our larynx impedes airflow for maximum aerobic performance, and requires that we have smaller and less useful jaws. It could only have evolved the way it did if language had a high selective advantage.
Burling observes that that human speech is digital whereas most animal communication is analog. Words are discrete from one another; they do not fall on a continuum. Bat and bag are two different words. Our hearing apparatus may err in choosing between them, but our brain will form one concept or the other. Compare this with a baby's cry, which can vary continuously from a whimper to a full-blown scream.
Both authors address the question of why a speech is a vocal rather than a gestural matter. It is both, on both the analog and the digital side. On the analog-visual side, a smile can represent quite a continuum of emotion. On the digital-visual side you have true languages like American sign language, and gestures such as a knotted head or an extended finger. Their conclusion is practical. The vocal tract can operate quickly, can operate in the dark, and it leaves the hands free. Lieberman cites statistical analyses showing that speech is about five times faster than any other mode by which people could communicate with one another. It evolved because it was highly efficient. Primatologists have written that grooming behaviors limit group size. It takes a lot of time to maintain social hierarchies picking nits from one another. Speech makes us more efficient nit pickers.
Burling asserts that there are five specific cognitive tools that are essential to learning a language:
1. A rich conceptual understanding of the world around us.
2. Joint attention: the ability of two individuals to focus on a single object, such as a tree to which one is pointing, or a coffee cup was holding.
3. The ability to imitate. If I make a sound or a gesture, you can imitate it.
4. The ability to understand pointing gestures, and representative signals such as "big" and "small," to establish abstract thoughts that can be verbalized as adjectives and adverbs, for instance.
5. The assumption that language will be pattered and repetitive ways. For instance, in a given language the subject will precede the verb and the object will follow it, or vice versa.
People are good at this. A trained anthropologist can sit with a person whose language is totally unknown to him and figure out how to communicate within a matter of hours or days. Even our closest primate relatives are fairly weak on these abilities.
Burling addresses the evolution of the structure of language. The first major question is words. There are 60,000 or so in the average vocabulary. Where and how they are stored as a mystery that is only now being unraveled. What is clear is that no such memory and retrieval system was required when communication was largely analog. We need syntax to hold our words together in meaningful relationships. Burling talks about how elements of syntax are likely to have evolved from independent, standalone words. See the McWhorter book for a more extended discussion.
Burling is fascinated with the question as to why language provided such a strong selective advantage. In his field work in rural India he notes that most tasks within a village can be accomplished without a great deal of verbal communication. People learn those tasks involved in agriculture by observation. Deaf-mutes can master the tasks about as well as hearing people. He offers a number of theories, the most intriguing of which is sexual selection. The peacock's tail is supposed to have evolved not because it gives the male peacock any advantage in life, but simply because it is more attractive to the peahen. Other authors have posited that sexual selection is the reason that blonde hair, blue eyes, hairless bodies and large breasts crept into the human populations. There is no doubt that both men and women prefer articulate partners, and that articulate people rise to the top of any human social grouping. They will have more mating opportunities. Burling notes as well that we measure intelligence in large measure as the expression of verbal ability. Upon this premise, he would say that there is sexual selection for intelligence.
The question that led me to read these books is the assertion that McWhorter makes that human speech is only 150,000 years old. The conclusion I get from both these authors is that the 150,000 year figure applies to speech by Homo sapiens. The production mechanisms we use were available about that long ago. A lot of the mental mechanics, the word storage, the syntax, and some of the production had to be in place much earlier.
It is interesting to superimpose the 150,000 year figure over the timeline of human migrations. Most authors believe that modern humans arose in Africa about 200,000 years ago and left about 50,000 years ago. We might expect the same kinds of evolutionary differentiation in linguistic abilities that occurred in human physiognomy. Neither author addresses the question, but on the very morning that I write this review there is an article in The Economist that a Dr. Dediu and a Dr. Ladd have found genetic differences between people to speak tonal languages such as Chinese and the rest of us. There is more to be learned about this most essential character of the human animal.
September 16, 2012
An overview of the unique human adaptations to speaking, both those in the mouth and those in the brain. It's aimed at a popular audience, but that doesn't mean it ever talks down to you or tries to oversimplify. It deliberately takes sides in the controversies about language evolution, arguing that Neanderthals had language but significantly inferior to that of modern humans, and that there is no instinctive Universal Grammar underlying the world's languages. (In this second point, Lieberman disagrees with Chomsky, no less). I would have preferred to read a book that gathered a wider variety of authors and theories on language evolution, but no such book was available at the local libraries. In a pinch, I think it's possible to get some sense of the disputes in a balanced way by reading this book together with The Language Instinct by Steven Pinker, a linguist and popular writer who supports the Chomskian orthodoxy.
March 4, 2019
In Eve Spoke, the noted linguist and cognitive scientist Philip Lieberman charts the evolution of human beings with respect to our ability to speak.
Much of this book tells the story of the evolution of speech, not least with regard to our unusual biology, but underlying it all is the standpoint of a man who recognises the fundamental importance of society and social learning in our evolution. The science here is impeccable, the story fascinating, the writing excellent.
Lieberman is particularly good when it comes to revealing the sleights of hand and other tricks employed by such people as Noam Chomsky and Steven Pinker, both of whom take genetics as their starting point. Although Chomsky has contributed a huge amount to linguistics, his genetically reductionist star is fading, and hopefully Pinker’s will fade with it.
The book was published in 1998, and as a consequence is behind the times when it comes to the Neanderthals. Lieberman goes for the ‘genetically isolated’ theory when it comes to matters of evolutionary competition, whereas today we know that some interbreeding did take place between homo sapiens and the Neanderthals. This is a minor matter however which doesn’t alter Lieberman’s main thesis in the slightest.
A terrific book.
Much of this book tells the story of the evolution of speech, not least with regard to our unusual biology, but underlying it all is the standpoint of a man who recognises the fundamental importance of society and social learning in our evolution. The science here is impeccable, the story fascinating, the writing excellent.
Lieberman is particularly good when it comes to revealing the sleights of hand and other tricks employed by such people as Noam Chomsky and Steven Pinker, both of whom take genetics as their starting point. Although Chomsky has contributed a huge amount to linguistics, his genetically reductionist star is fading, and hopefully Pinker’s will fade with it.
The book was published in 1998, and as a consequence is behind the times when it comes to the Neanderthals. Lieberman goes for the ‘genetically isolated’ theory when it comes to matters of evolutionary competition, whereas today we know that some interbreeding did take place between homo sapiens and the Neanderthals. This is a minor matter however which doesn’t alter Lieberman’s main thesis in the slightest.
A terrific book.
July 1, 2021
If we could pare the conflict between formalists and functionalists down to one thing only, I am pretty sure that one thing would have to be the definition of "language". Lieberman is a functionalist, adopting the idea that language evolved to serve as a means for communication. He does not only criticize the alternative view defended by Chomsky and others; he ridicules it. You can tell from the tone of his writing that the author despises Chomsky and his generative hypothesis, which is Lieberman's prerogative, but he should have offered a more convincing argument.
Lieberman's main focus in this book is on speech, but formalists, when discussing language evolution, are more concerned with the cognitive system that is independent of speech. It would have been better if the author had laid out his definition from the beginning, but he didn't. Lieberman also fails to provide answers to the questions posed by the Chomskian linguists regarding language evolution, and by language, I mean the cognitive system. For example, why is it that computational efficiency always wins over communicative efficiency? If language had evolved to satisfy the communicative pressure, we would expect it to be more communicatively efficient, but it is not. The property of displacement, which exists in every language studied, taxes cognition. Wouldn't be more economical and communicatively efficient if words were pronounced where they received their interpretations?
Lieberman's main focus in this book is on speech, but formalists, when discussing language evolution, are more concerned with the cognitive system that is independent of speech. It would have been better if the author had laid out his definition from the beginning, but he didn't. Lieberman also fails to provide answers to the questions posed by the Chomskian linguists regarding language evolution, and by language, I mean the cognitive system. For example, why is it that computational efficiency always wins over communicative efficiency? If language had evolved to satisfy the communicative pressure, we would expect it to be more communicatively efficient, but it is not. The property of displacement, which exists in every language studied, taxes cognition. Wouldn't be more economical and communicatively efficient if words were pronounced where they received their interpretations?
November 21, 2015
This book is all about the evolution of speech. It has a lot of details on how speech was created through sounds made. It states different theories from different scientists and their research. It uses many forms of writing to get the information to the reader including graphs(page 15), pictures(page 57), and diagrams (page 57). The book doesn't only have drawn in pictures, it has actual pictures as seen on page 88.
This book uses metaphor to help explain the complex topic. An example of this is, "Speech is a Five Ring Circus"(Lieberman 15). Then it expains by saying how complex speaking is, just like a circus. I also learned a lot from this book. For example, did you know that the velum is a structure in the body that can seal the mouth from the nose? Not only that, but speech uses our lips, tongue, lungs, larynx, and velum!
I rated this book 4 out of 5 stars because although I learned a lot and it was very interesting, I had an extremely hard time keeping focus. I would reccomend this book to anyone who is interested in psychology, human sciences, or want a good read about speech.
This book uses metaphor to help explain the complex topic. An example of this is, "Speech is a Five Ring Circus"(Lieberman 15). Then it expains by saying how complex speaking is, just like a circus. I also learned a lot from this book. For example, did you know that the velum is a structure in the body that can seal the mouth from the nose? Not only that, but speech uses our lips, tongue, lungs, larynx, and velum!
I rated this book 4 out of 5 stars because although I learned a lot and it was very interesting, I had an extremely hard time keeping focus. I would reccomend this book to anyone who is interested in psychology, human sciences, or want a good read about speech.
December 24, 2007
As one of my few forays into biological/scientific concerns (I'm a big fan of the late, great Steven Jay Gould), I found this a very engaging read. The author's seemingly well-grounded speculations on how the human race developed complex speech patterns was fairly fascinating...at least for an architect.
January 3, 2013
Finally got around to finishing it. Very fun and easy to read, gives few new perspectives of brain and language development, but why do sheep in other languages make different sounds?
November 23, 2012
This is a really good book. Clear, concise, fascinating. I recommend it to anybody interested in human evolution, language or psychology/evolution.
Want to Read
September 9, 2013language evolution
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews