In this blog post, we will look at the origin of human language and explore whether it is the result of natural selection or a product of social conventions.
In nature, humans are at the top of the ecosystem. Unlike other species, humans are able to reign as the top predators of the ecosystem because only humans have “language.” Language goes beyond being a simple means of communication, allowing humans to form complex societies, accumulate culture and knowledge, and pass on information across generations. However, just as bats use the Doppler effect to track flying insects and migratory birds use the movement of the stars to navigate, human language is no different from the many mysteries of nature. Language is not only a privilege of humans, but can also be seen as one of the many mysterious phenomena of the natural world. So, like other mysteries of nature, has language evolved? Many scholars have offered various opinions on the origin of language, and among them, the positions that emphasize the evolution of language and the opposing positions are clashing. In this article, I would like to introduce and refute the opinion of Steven Arthur Pinker to argue that human language cannot be said to have evolved. Furthermore, I will present a scenario to explain how human language and grammar systems could have developed if human language evolution was not due to natural selection.
First, let’s take a look at the meaning of ‘evolution’. It is natural that bacteria at the beginning of life could not speak. After all, according to Darwin’s theory of evolution, various species have differentiated through evolution, and as a result, the human species has acquired language. When viewed in this way, the question of whether human language has evolved or not is not that important. The evolution of language that I will be talking about in this article is whether the development of language includes the elements of natural selection. The reason why flying fish return to the water after jumping out of the water is not due to any natural selection, but to the physical law of gravity. The reason why human bones are white is that calcium was selected in the process of natural selection to make human bones hard, and calcium happened to be white. If we claim that language has evolved, we can say that language corresponds to calcium, and vice versa. In his book The Language Instinct, Pinker agrees with and elaborates on Avram Noam Chomsky’s claim that “human language is instinct.” According to his claim, children have a “universal grammar,” a single blueprint common to the grammar of all languages, which is innate. This is evidenced by the fact that children quickly and completely acquire the internal grammar system while listening to adults and that the grammar system has complex but precise rules. It is instinctive and inherent in humans to use language, just as spiders spin their webs. There is even a case where a child born deaf learned sign language from his parents, who were clumsy signers, and became able to sign with a more perfect grammar. This suggests that even if a program called Universal Grammar is used to input incomplete language, a language with a complete grammar system will be output. However, Pinker argues for the evolution of language, unlike Chomsky. There are two main reasons for this. First, the structure of the brain that controls language ability is highly complex, and second, the existence of the FOXP2 gene, which is called the language gene, has been confirmed. The eye is a product of adaptation that is universally recognized to have evolved from skin cells that detect light. Such a complex structure can only be explained by natural selection unless one believes in the existence of a creator, and similarly, the brain responsible for highly complex language skills can only be explained by natural selection. As for its purpose, natural selection is explained as being based on the premise that it does not require enormous benefits because it goes through numerous generations, and communication plays a great role in survival, cooperation, and alliances, and language is a very important means in that process. In addition, the discovery of the FOXP2 gene provides substantial evidence that this gene could be interpreted as a mutant gene when humans were separated from other primates. First, the FOXP2 gene cannot be considered substantial evidence. Since a single gene does not determine only one trait, the FOXP2 gene may be related to other abilities besides language ability. In fact, an MIT experiment found that the FOXP2 gene is also present in chimpanzees and rats, and that mice with the human FOXP2 gene had improved intelligence. The existence of this gene suggests that one of the gene’s many phenotypes can be selected by natural selection. That phenotype does not necessarily have to be language. It can also be interpreted that the language that was in the same gene was also developed because the improvement of intelligence was natural selection. In 1920, two girls, Kamala (8 years old) and Amara (6 years old), were found in a wolf den in Midnapur, India. They were abandoned in human society and were thought to have been accidentally found by a pack of wolves and raised. When they were discovered by Josephine, a Christian missionary, the two girls were unable to stand because of weak ankle joints, and they were running on all fours. They responded to the howling of dogs and wolves, but they could not speak. Afterwards, they tried to teach them language, but they were unable to communicate, only repeating a few words. If the ability to develop a grammar system is determined by the FOXP2 gene, did the gene disappear? Or were the two children who were raised by a pack of wolves by chance? This time, let’s talk about the complexity of the brain. I agree that the structures of the brain responsible for language ability and the “universal grammar” possessed by young children are very complex. However, there is a lack of justification as to why language was naturally selected. If it was just for communication or cooperation, why did language have to be so complicated? It is enough to be able to understand each other’s words and intentions while using language. However, the use of honorifics and various auxiliaries in our current grammar is very difficult. If language was naturally selected, how can these be explained? Natural selection also cannot fully explain how the first individual with a grammar mutation developed it. Of course, similar mutations could have occurred in the individual’s siblings, sisters, and neighbors, but at first, their expressions of a single “narrative” would have been different. This requires social rules. This cannot be solved by human language alone. If human language is not the result of natural selection, how can we say that language has developed? I think it has developed through natural selection, which has increased intelligence and increased the size of the brain. The scenario is as follows. First, children who have developed the vocal organs hear different sounds coming out of their mouths and are amazed. So they start making different sounds depending on the situation. At first, they just cry, but when they want to warn others of danger, they say HELP, when they are in trouble, they say HARD, and when they are happy, they say WOW. Children whose intelligence has risen through natural selection are able to express their situations in increasingly complex forms. Of course, their expressions may have been different in this process. However, with the premise of an increase in intelligence, they would have formed a primary language through social commitments. Afterwards, language develops through children born with universal grammar. In other words, it is more convincing to explain that language developed through an increase in intelligence and a larger brain than to assume that language itself was naturally selected.
We can make different sounds and cause thoughts or feelings to arise in the minds of others. In this respect, language is a marvel and one of the characteristics that distinguishes humans from other animals. However, just because it is marvelous and great does not mean that it is the result of evolution. Putting language into the framework of evolution and natural selection is like trying to fit a piece of a circle into a square and claiming that the piece fits because it fits. The complexity of language and the need for social conventions, which cannot be explained by natural selection, suggest that human language cannot be explained simply as instinctive or evolutionary.
