The Bambi Hypothesis 

Nov 18, 2020

An exploration of the evolution of language

Abstract for Language Evolution Hypothesis

A Language Hypothesis defining a set of characteristics related to human evolution and child development that unfolded especially for women and children since the homo/chimp split approximately 5 to 7 million years ago.  Millions of years of evolution are responsible for the child development questions that confront any parent or educator in the present day, many which are survival dependent.  The delicate nature of infants was a determinant factor in our evolution, consequently, some traits and cultural developments must have been early in our evolution.  Language, for example, is postulated to be a direct result of child rearing practices necessitated by life on the ground.  Mother-child relations, care of and disposal of feces, and diet are affected by life on the ground.  Also stipulated are some of our uniquely human features that are cultural, educational, and social. 

More than one hundred thirty years after the publication of Darwin’s Origin, debates over the nature of early man continue.  [(see Fiorina & Abrams, 2008; Hetherington, 2009).] While early studies viewed evolution and natural selection in largely positive or negative terms, and often from the world view of the majestic hunter, little attention was paid to females of the species and the problems of child rearing.  [(Berelson, Lazarsfeld, and McPhee 1954; Campbell et al. 1960)].  The so-called savanna theory has fallen into disfavor.  [(Green, Palmquist, and Schickler 2004; Greene 1999; Huddy, Mason, and Aarøe 2010; Iyengar, Sood, and Lelkes 2012).] More recent work suggests that humans evolved in a “mosaic” environment.  Implied in the mosaic concept is a special set of circumstances for mothers and children.

      Social and cultural problems associated with life on the ground, or partly on the ground and in the trees, is the subject of this paper and the root of the Bambi Hypothesis.  Some divergent areas of research tantalizingly point to the importance of child-rearing and child care as a determinant factor in our evolution. A few known stop points indicate possible changes in the phenotype and genotype makeup of our homo line: the strength of hair to support a clinging child; the existence of body lice; dna studies of language; bipedalism and brain capacity.  All of these changes have implications for child rearing practices, and the subsequent life of the average female [(Haidt and Hetherington 2012; Iyengar, Sood, and Lelkes 2012).]

This paper explores new and old evidence and postulates what I have dubbed “The Bambi Hypothesis.”  The mother deer, as epitomized in the Disney© movie “Bambi”©, hides from predators or runs away. Homo now, and theoretically throughout our evolution since our split with chimps, is exactly the opposite of the mother deer and fawn. How we differ from the deer is that we have low escape ability and loud children.  The deer lifestyle is what we might call “quiet” compared to, for example, the chimpanzees, who are “loud” and scream at predators from the trees.  This is the source of the name of this hypothesis:  Bambi’s mother says to Bambi, “Be quiet!  Hunters are in the forest…”  And while it doesn’t sound very scientific to use a Disney movie quote, it is the best illustration of the problem.  We humans, and our closest relatives the chimpanzees, are not quiet, and this is the exact opposite of what Bambi’s mother did in response to the hunters in the forest; she first has Bambi hide and be very quiet, and then to run.  

Our “predators” over the last 6 million years have included mosquitoes, crocodiles, leopards, lions, snakes, hippopotamuses, and etc.  Perhaps also other proto-homo/pan/aa creatures hunted and killed each other as well.  New fossil evidence may add to this shortened list in the future.  

The Bambi Hypothesis is that homo during the course of evolving was in an environment that was 1. Loud, 2. Bountiful, 3. Relatively free of predators, and 4. Conducive to socialized child development.  

Loud. Parents today are unable to quiet a crying child when that child is in the midst of some sort of internal difficulty.  We just have to suffer through it until the crisis passes.  Colic, as an example of a modern day difficulty that may not have existed 6 million years ago, can involve uninterrupted hours of a child screaming quite loudly.  This would attract predators from miles around, who would then come and eat the child.  We must have early evolved some sort of mechanism to ward off predators from this threat.  Modern day humans are on guard from uninterrupted crying for at least the first two years of life. 

Bountiful.  Our species evolved in a “land of plenty.”  An area of Africa with plenty of resources in food, shelter and protection.  We do not seem to be a species in need of natural defenses.  We have huge water needs.  Weak bodies.  Un-specialized teeth.  An omnivorous, non-specialized diet.  However, we early seem to have shifted to a sexualized species, and reproduction became a paramount concern, not unlike our cousins the Bonobo.  That we evolved with bountiful food and resources is counter to at least one idea in the theory of evolution.  Usually we think of a species evolving and changing because of genetic mutations that occur and are favorable in a changing environment that is exerting survival pressures, often related to food shortages.  

Relatively free of predators.  As we left the trees, we must have also maintained and created social and cultural environments that protected ourselves from predation, and also kept our children somewhat contained.  Our children were not “quiet.”  Nor were they immobile.  Nor did they cling to the fur of their mothers.  Therefore, our social groups must have arranged the environment such that predators were relatively excluded, and children were relatively contained.  Certainly for the first few million years after our split from the Chimps, we would use the trees for escape.  But there are problems (unattached children falling from trees, for example) associated with that, so that we evolved mechanisms to defend ourselves without resorting to tree climbing.  From today’s perspective it is not clear and not known what those defensive mechanisms might have been. They cannot, by classification, be too far removed from traits that we share with Pan and Gorilla.  Our common ancestor did not have the traits, but had the potential to evolve them.  

    They are not:  powerful muscles, strong teeth, or ripping claws because other species in our clade have these and did not develop into a homo-like creature.  Rather, it must be some sort of evasive mechanism, out-maneuvering, or, most unpleasantly, a resignation to a certain amount of loss of our children and population to predation and accident.  

Conducive to social child development.  Since mothers could not control their child or children by having them physically cling to their fur, language evolved early so that females could communicate dangers to their children, and control their children in an open environment.  Males were also connected with child rearing, but not in the same sense as the female, who would have been breastfeeding the child.    

Language evolved as a response to a child rearing exigency.  Since children were no longer attached to their mothers, by clinging to their fur, we had a situation with children running loose on the ground.  Language is an outcome essentially of motherhood, and the problems associated with “life on the ground” instead of clinging to fur.  Even today, women have a slight advantage in language skills in test results, and, while this itself is somewhat controversial, it is enough of a difference to at least pause and consider if there is an evolutionary cause.  

I once observed a mother and child walking down the sidewalk.  The mother kept up a continuous stream of instructions to the child. Phrases such as, “hold my hand,” “watch out for the street,” “be careful of that hole,” and the like.  Men, males of our species, are not as prone to this sort of protective language, though it does exist in both (or all) genders.  It is a tendency, not a proven, indelible fact. 

This protective language between mothers and children still exists today.  It is probable that it also existed 6 million years ago, and for the same reasons.  To preserve the life of the child!  

In summary, the Bambi Hypothesis is that life on the ground, without fur that would hold a clinging child, required our species to evolve a new method of protecting the child from danger.  That method is language communication, understandable by both the mother and the child.  Nouns such as “snake” probably evolved first, followed by verbs such as “run.”  

More work is to follow on this hypothesis, and an updated reference list. 

April 29, 2021.