Clearly written and accessible to the general reader, this is a fascinating theory on the Origin of Language and humans learning to speak. Perhaps slightly controversial, as it puts her theories at odds with other linguistic thinkers, but interesting nonetheless.

I received an advanced complimentary digital copy of this book from Netgalley. Opinions expressed are my own.

An Anti-Scientific Guess About Homo Sapiens’ Specialness in Language
Madeleine Beekman, The Origin of Language: How We Learned to Speak and Why (New York: Simon & Schuster, August 5, 2025). $29.99.
**
“…A… new story about the birth of our species… It was not hunting, fighting, or tool-making that forced early humans to speak, but the inescapable need to care for our children.” This does not make immediately clear sense. Monkeys and all animals have children, but only humans have developed language. So it seems irrational to associate a thing we share in common with all animals as the cause of the thing that makes us different… “Journeying to the dawn of Homo sapiens, evolutionary biologist Madeleine Beekman reveals the ‘happy accidents’ hidden in our molecular biology—DNA, chromosomes, and proteins—that led to one of the most fateful events in the history of life on Earth: our giving birth to babies earlier in their development than our hominid cousins the Neanderthals and Denisovans.” I tried to find sources online that might have confirmed that scientists have figured out the length of time Neanderthal or Denisovan babies spent in the womb, but no such science has previously been achieved. I searched for “womb” inside this book. One mention uses faulty logic to reach this conclusion. It claims that homo sapiens’ babies had a “large head”. This is not true, as Neanderthals and Denisovans technically had larger brains than homo sapiens. And then this falsehood is used to claim that babies with bigger heads would have needed to exit the womb earlier. Absolutely no evidence is given for this imaginative hypothesis. The two other mentions of “womb” are entirely irrelevant, with the second being to “artificial wombs” in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. This is not a scientifically sound study.
“Faced with highly dependent infants requiring years of nurturing and protection, early human communities needed to cooperate and coordinate, and it was this unprecedented need for communication that triggered the creation of human language—and changed everything.” Most of science is pseudoscientific, or uses these types of fantasy-imaginings to raise a claim. Some scientists manage to convince other scientists of such unfounded theories, and as more and more repeat the same falsehood it tends to be established as a “scientific fact” taught in science classes. Here it is: fictional science in the making.
“Challenging the traditional theories of male luminaries like Chomsky, Pinker, and Harari, she invites us into the intricate world of molecular biology and its ancient secrets…” If these secrets are ancient; how can they also be something new the author has discovered? Curious to learn about this opposition, I searched for these “luminaries’” names. Chomsky is mentioned in chapter six. It begins by explaining that Alfred Russel Wallace has been credited as a “co-discoverer of evolution”, and that he argued against the study of a “proto-language” until both the Parisian and London societies of science “banned the discussion of the evolution of language in 1866 and 1872”. This ban was apparently only “broken in the late 1950s” first by Skinner and then by Chomsky. Skinner thought language was a simple “conditioned behavior”, while Chomsky romanticized it as “an innate faculty unique to humans”. Then, there is a lengthy explanation of an experiment that tested if other primates can acquire associative language, and proved that it was a conditioned behavior. The section concludes by nothing that “both Skinner and Chomsky were half right. Language is partly acquired and partly innate.” This is not at all a refutation of what Chomsky argued, but rather a refusal to offend either Chomsky or Skinner. This is the only section in this book that mentions Chomsky. So, this book does not really criticize “male luminaries”, but rather repeats their achievements in a puffery. Other primates can be taught complex and associative language when enough effort is invested. Baby-nurturing duration might have given humans more time to communicate with babies. But orangutans spend up to eight years nurturing youths, and there are other record-holders who get attached to kids for greater durations than humans. This is an element that should mean other primates should be capable of language-acquisition, as opposed to proving human specialness.
I do not recommend this book to any readers. It is anti-scientific. It is also poorly written, or lacks the flare fiction would have had to include. 2
--Pennsylvania Literary Journal: https://anaphoraliterary.com/journals/plj/plj-excerpts/book-reviews-summer-2025/

In The Origin of Language: How We Learned to Speak and Why, evolutionary biologist Madeleine Beekman puts forward a provocative account of how human language arose that is increasingly popular among feminist-friendly sociobiologists. Rejecting conventional theories that trace language’s roots to hunting, tool-making, male hierarchy, or warfare, Beekman argues instead that the driving force was the need to cooperatively care for increasingly helpless infants. As humans evolved to walk upright, the resulting anatomical changes, especially narrower hips, necessitated earlier births. Coupled with the growth of larger brains, this meant that human babies were born far more developmentally premature than those of other species (neotony). This condition demanded a new level of group coordination and understanding, for which Beekman claims language emerged as the essential tool. In this framing, language is not a product of dominance or intelligence, but of vulnerability, cooperation, and social caregiving. This framing is largely irrelevant to the scientific point that the selection pressure for language was likely the need for intense social communication and it was likely needed most intensively in mother-child and mother-father pair-bonding.

Beekman intertwines evolutionary biology with a critique of dominant linguistic theories. She pushes back against Noam Chomsky’s concept of a hard-wired “universal grammar,” Steven Pinker’s nativist accounts, and even behaviorist explanations like those of B.F. Skinner. Instead, she suggests that language is more akin to a cultural virus or meme, something that emerges and spreads because the minds of infants are primed to absorb and reproduce it under the right social conditions. This isn't particularly persuasive given the known genetic evidence of vocal adaptation in the vocal chords and genetic differentiation in speech-associated genes between Sapiens and Neanderthals like FOXP2.

The storytelling is vivid, clear and wide-ranging: from the cassowary’s bizarre behaviors to the communal logic of ant colonies, she draws parallels from the animal kingdom to illuminate how cooperation, not just cognition, might lie at the heart of linguistic evolution. She leads readers through the biological contingencies and cultural contexts that shaped our capacity for speech. Importantly, she suggests that modern social structures, such as the nuclear family, might inhibit the natural conditions under which language once flourished, warning that the loss of communal caregiving may endanger not just social cohesion but the deeper human tendencies that gave rise to language itself. This is also pretty unpersuasive given that her claim is primarily that pair-bonding provided the selection pressure for language.

Evaluating Beekman’s scientific claims requires distinguishing between empirical plausibility and speculative narrative. Her central premise that language emerged from cooperative child-rearing is grounded in well-supported anthropological observations about extended childhood in humans and the unusually high levels of alloparenting in human societies. These features are indeed unique and likely exerted evolutionary pressure. However, her dismissal of competing theories is poorly justified. While Chomsky’s universal grammar hypothesis remains controversial, there is considerable empirical and computational work suggesting that some innate cognitive structures facilitate language learning. Moreover, the link between tool-use, planning, and symbolic thinking, argued by some as precursors to syntax and abstraction, cannot be entirely discounted. Beekman’s account also depends heavily on the idea of "happy accidents" at the molecular level, which, while not implausible, verge on just-so storytelling without direct fossil or genetic evidence tying these events to the emergence of syntax or grammar, though this is a feature of all popular evolutionary narrativizing.

Ultimately, this is an okay but overly ideological re-telling of the evolution of language. It also adds little to no new information to the story. The most helpful portion is the recounting of several important genetic changes between humans and chimps, though she is a bit of an overly credulous reader of that evidence while overly skeptical of modern genetic insights about individual differences. and genomic prediction of human traits.

An evolutionary biologist explores how the the helplessness of human babies at birth necessitated unprecedented cooperation and communication, ultimately leading to the development of human language.

This brilliant, easy-to-read book is not about linguistics but instead focuses on a multidisciplinary approach to physical and cognitive evolution. For instance, as human ancestors became bipedal, mothers started carrying their babies in their arms rather than on their backs. This inhibited their ability to collect food, perhaps forcing them to form a pair bond with the baby’s father in order to keep the infant alive. Physical changes required social changes on a seven-million-year odyssey leading to language. Anyone interested in human evolution, particularly cognitive evolution, will enjoy this book.

Thanks, NetGalley, for the ARC I received. This is my honest and voluntary review.

Have you ever wondered how humans went from making sounds to making small talk? Evolutionary biologist Madeleine Beekman explores the science behind communication, delivering a book packed with rigorous research and sharp wit. This is an accessible read, suitable for both serious scientists and casual lovers of language.

Madeleine Beekman's expertise shines through in this book. I really enjoyed it but my biggest complaint, and the reason for my raiting, is that it emphasized too much on the "why" we learned to speak and not much on the "how."

In all, this was a great dive into evolutionary biology, guiding us through the human brain and how overall awesome it is. I honestly love this sort of stuff but as a scholar who studies language, I expected more ABOUT the actual language part.

I did enjoy the highly detailed explanations about evolution, biology and behavior changes we made. One of the concepts that sticks out the most from this book is the explanation of why humans have so much white in our eyes. Compared to other animals, we have a lot to better communicate because we can better understand where someone is looking! This is the sort of stuff I love to learn and read about!

I do plan on picking up another book by Dr. Beekman and I hope she dives into language more!

Thanks so much to NetGalley for the free Kindle book. My review is voluntarily given, and my opinions are my own.

I went back and forth between giving this a 3 or 4 star but decided to give it a 3 star in the end. The writing is great, and you could tell the author did tons of research for the book. However, there wasn't a huge focus on language. The reason I chose the book is because it was about language. Which there's nothing wrong with a book focusing on the evolution and biology of species, but then say that in your title. Not to say that there was nothing about language in the book, just that more in a general.

This would be a great book for those people interested in the topic of the evolution and biology of humans. However, it will be difficult for many of them to find since the title says language.

I was prepared to love this book as a self-professed language nerd (and biological anthropologist!) but I was a bit underwhelmed. I'm rating 3.5 stars. The hypotheses are interesting, but the explanations become meandering and unfocused at times, and overly simplistic at other times. The Origin of Language had a lot of promise, but I don't think it quite stuck the landing. Thanks to the author, the publisher, and NetGalley for the opportunity to read and review The Origin of Language.

My thanks to NetGalley and Simon & Schuster for an advance copy of this new book that looks at why humans, language, evolution, genes and the nurturing and care of children that lead to so many changes.

I grew up in the Bronx with both of my grandparents watching my brother and I when parents had to work. Both sets of grandparents were immigrants from Ireland. My father's side had no real accent, something that I picked up. My mother's parents had a bit of a brogue, and lapsed into Gaelic, usually in times of stress, joy, or when cursing. This happened a lot as my brother and I were bit of a handful, add in some of the cousins, were annoying bunch. I always thought they were nonsense words, or words to cover up bad words. I had no idea Gaelic was a language, nor that people learned languages outside of what I knew. This was he seventies, we really were culturally ignorant. More so when I moved to Connecticut. Language was used o make sure us stupid kids didn't fall off the fire escape, or climb into the garbage shoot, or fall off a roof, stuff we tried to do. One could say this is how many humans have survived, and according to this book, why along with a lot of biology that humans began to communicate. The Origin of Language: How We Learned to Speak and Why by Madeleine Beekman is a history on how humans were able to speak, having families made this necessary as well as a look at how humans adapted and changed over the years.

The book begins with babies, the authors own and the author's fascination with watching them pick up social cues so quickly. Children are schemers, able to see tells in a human like a conman cheating a mark. Eyes, hands, voice, children pick this up, knowing when things are going well, when things aren't and trying to make them fit the narrative the children want. The book than looks at various fields of science, from DNA, to evolution, covering a lot of time and locations. A bear walking upright from injured front paws, that show changes in the bones, to bodies of different humans, showing changes at various times. Beekman points out the problems that babies cause for people: babies take a lot of time and effort to keep alive. For a long time. Language, and communication would help with this, and Beekman uses many examples to prove this.

I wasn't sure what I expected from the book, but I found the book interesting, and gave me much to think about. As a person who never wanted children, I never gave much thought to how much needs to be communicated to keep children safe. Even as an uncle, I never thought about this, but a recent fishing trip with the youngest amazed me that even at his age, safety was last on his list of things he cared about. Beekman is a very good writer, explaining things well, and even I could follow along on many things. I loved the facts and different ideas that Beekman posits, as well as the sly humor that Beekman injects into the narrative. I can see where some of this might be controversial, but the ease in which Beekman discusses the subject, answering paragraphs later questing that were occuring to me really made for a compelling argument.

Not a book for everyone. I must admit to having to read a few things twice, maybe more just to be sure I was understanding things. However the book has a lot of information, is presented well, and is quite readable. A book that I am sure will start a lot of conversations.

Thank you, Net Galley, for the free ARC. I really thoroughly enjoyed this book. I have a background in biology, so much of the information was a review, but it was offered in an illustrative and fun way. I felt the book was very well researched.

Evolutionary biologist Madeline Beckman tackles the origins of human language from a fresh perspective. While the book dives deep into the science of language and evolution, its premise is simple: language developed, of course, to help us care for our particularly helpless young.

While I confess to getting slightly mired down in the DNA discussions on occasion, I found the central thesis compelling. (Funny how all of the men who have written on the topic completely ignored this rather vital contribution of child care to species survival!) And the book continued to expand my understanding of genetics and human evolution.

This is an interesting book digging into man’s evolution as preparation for the development of language. The authors voice is easy to read and down to earth with interesting factoids that kept the scientific detail from bogging down. I never was bored. The point was lost because I didn't feel the question posted by the title was sufficiently answered. That could just be me. I'd love to hear what others think.

Although the chapters sometimes felt disconnected initially, once I understood how each example fit into the narrative, I really started to appreciate this book.

There are several aspects that I enjoyed especially as one with a biology background.

Having a preexisting understanding of Tinbergen’s questions allowed me to view each example provided as either proximate (how, what) or ultimate (why) to put it simply. This was like reading an animal behavior textbook in a conversational tone.

Using vernacular to break down complex concepts like the role of gene duplication as one contribution to speciation- I thought that I would hate it, but I didn’t. Instead I got really excited that when this book publishes, I am buying a copy and sharing with my biology students who might not understand the textbook explanations.

So without getting into the weeds of all the parts of this book that I really quite liked, let’s just say that this book probably isn’t for everyone. I liked this better than Sapiens. I will be buying a copy of this book when it publishes, and I think that biology teachers of undergraduate level courses may find value in this.

For that alone, I am giving this book a 4.5⭐️ rating.

Thank you publishers and NetGalley for this ARC and opportunity to review it.

I struggled with this book.The repetition, the careful phrasing of ideas and thoughts and beliefs rather than scientific facts; the fact that at 37% into the book we had skipped from DNA and how humans are related to bananas to talks about how pelvises work, then on to fetuses, which are shaped like a comma. This reads like simplified trivia in parts, and the presentation wasn’t working for me.

The tone wasn’t quite conversational, not quite educational, but felt .. like a teacher explaining things to a much younger student. Not in an offensive way, just a very simplified way that skipped over details in order to give a gist of the bigger picture. And it was boring.

I could follow along the path of evolution, DNA, traits and behaviors, the cost of childbirth and mutations — but by now I was 30% in, when penis bones, spines, and knots are mentioned — and I’m still bored. I can follow the author’s path, from genes to childbirth, reproduction to the loss of a chromosomal pair and how that affects human fertility (which then leads into a talk about Tinder and cane toad sex and on into incest) but … the writing isn’t strong enough to hold my interest, and nothing is well explained. It’s too simplified, too speculative, too focused on forced analogies and segues.

I don’t know who the audience for this book is, but it isn’t me. I’m sorry, this book is a solid pass. Thank you to Net Galley and the publisher for the ARC.

This book could have easily been a five-star effort, but Ms. Beekman dropped the ball. Her theory departs from the standard genetic orthodoxy (Dawkins, Pinker, et al.) that the need for cooperative childcare created human language. Still, her arguments in favor are, at best, relatively weak and incomplete. Ms. Beekman added a lot of filler to "The Origin of Language." I didn't need to go on two imaginary train rides with other extinct Hominines. Her book was often interesting, but it required much better editing to encourage the author to focus her arguments in favor of her theory.