Are you GA guys aware that a very similar debate has been raging in the fields of anthropology and biology?
The first essay, based on the abstract, ends where GA begins.
It's amusing that the second essay sees the claim of a singular (rather than gradual) origin as evidence of "Eurocentrism."
Anyway, as BB points out, Gans has been dealing with these discussions, at what seems to be a higher level, for quite a while.
Thanks!
---
Some effects would be felt right away--it would now be possible to issue the sign repeatedly. Some would be spread out. It's possible that language (or a single sign) was used only on the ritual scene, in dividing the kill (for example), for a long time. It might have taken a while for it to be used more generally. The sequence of ostensive, then imperative, then declarative, could have taken place very rapidly or very slowly. Archaeological evidence might help narrow down the possibilities, and Gans did refer to evidence of an "early" emergence of language when there was a debate a while back of the time of emergence. It's interesting, but not a fundamental question. If archaeologists were to take GA seriously, it might give them ideas regarding what to look for.
The same goes with singular vs. plural emergence. Gans assumes singular just because it would be an unlikely event, almost "miraculous," but the possibility of plural instances can't be excluded. Obviously, if it happened once, it could have happened more times.
As BB points out, the question, first of all, is what language *is*. Words "mean" things, or "work," just because all speakers of a language "share" the signs, or "know" what they mean. This is the case beyond a specific reference or situation--language exists in the "space" between members of a community. The hypothesis is that this couldn't have happened through mere evolutionary means, through an accumulation of adaptations--how would a series of adaptations "add up" to something like "meaning." One of those adaptations would have "tipped" something that wasn't yet meaning (or a sign) into it--you can assume it was just some accident, or you can assume it's an event. Assuming it's an event, one that involved something like a "revelation"--everybody sees that everybody else sees something new--would better account for humans being intentional beings (we make meaning, and know we are doing so).