> The limits of communication through language is
> the ability to produce different sounds: we call
> those articulatory distinctive features. Infants
> have been shown to be capable of producing all of
> these speech sounds before they focus on learning
> the specific sounds of their language community.
> That's the universal core that allows a child to
> learn any spoken language.
> If we had ancient tape recorders, I'm convinced we
> could demonstrate that process far far back in
> time. We have been able to trace back oral
> traditions (folk stories) way before evidence of
> written alphabets.
> The written alphabets we've found and decoded are
> tied to significant urban cultures. They have to
> be--or we wouldn't be able to decode them.
The ability to make sounds is innate but consider many individuals have difficulty making every sound even in their own language. Half of TV anchormen (I don't watch any longer) can't properly pronounce all or any of the "R" sounds in English. This is quite common even among the (more intelligent) general population. That babies babel can hardly be construed to support the ideas that language follows progress or that the ability to produce sounds drives language. I have no doubt that many linguists can't pronounce every sound in their own language. The only thing certain to be deducible from babbling is that sound precedes language and this is mostly worthless knowledge. That babbling occurs in almost every individual is more important.
It seems apparent that writing arose from language which arose from a sudden ability to engage in complex behavior. In individuals language leads to knowledge and the ability to increase knowledge even beyond what is known by the culture. There are myriad ways that language leads to knowledge but chief among them are listening and reading (one and two way communication).