That the Flintstones approach lives is shown by the current hottest number in origin studies – the “gestural-origin” theory […] Whether or not the theory that a gestural language preceded spoken language is a violation of parsimony […] is really beside the point. Either this gestural language was a structure as complex and noniconic as modern sign – in which case the real question would be, how did it get to be more abstract and complex? In fact, the “gestural-origins” theory is just as much focused on the “supposed critical point” of language development, and just as indifferent to any of the substantive questions about language origins as any of the other “Flintstones” theories.
- Bickerton (1981), a pag.215-216