Jump to content
Science Forums

Why Did We Evolve Language?


charles brough

Recommended Posts

I hope some of you can enlighten me on why there is so much resistance to the concept or theory that one of the main reasons for language is that it was the only way we humans could adapt to living in large numbers?

 

After all, we evolved as hunting-gathering primates genetically (instinctively) programed to live in groups of some forty people. Logically, a number of such groups could be bound together into a single, large society simply by adopting a common belief system---something that only language could do.

 

Has the screaming over "Creationism" created such confusion and hate that social scientists are afraid to bring evolution into the picture to show the evolution of religion?

 

charles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Well, it is not only humans that have a "language". Other animals living in groups use a simple language system of, for example, warnings to improve the group's chances of survival.

 

I agree with the first paragraph of Charles' post. However, as for "adopting" a common belief system I feel that a belief system becomes common instead of being adopted, especially among small groups. This is particular among humans in that humans learn behaviour from each other more than relying on instincts when living and working in a group. Therefore, religion (belief) evolves because of the existence of the group rather than being a planned outcome.

 

In my opinion.

 

Gavin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it is not only humans that have a "language". Other animals living in groups use a simple language system of, for example, warnings to improve the group's chances of survival.

 

I agree with the first paragraph of Charles' post. However, as for "adopting" a common belief system I feel that a belief system becomes common instead of being adopted, especially among small groups. This is particular among humans in that humans learn behaviour from each other more than relying on instincts when living and working in a group. Therefore, religion (belief) evolves because of the existence of the group rather than being a planned outcome.

 

In my opinion.

 

Gavin

 

science writers like to exaggerate the importance of the "discovery" they are writing about. For example---lumping chimp gestures with the spoken langauge as thought they were the same or equal. "Gestures" is one thing: "langauge is yet another. All they have in common is that both are forms of communication. But then, so are facial gestures. Do they call them "and instinctive language?" No.

 

I am wondering how a belief system (religion) can become common without being adopted . . .

 

charles, HOME PAGE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example---lumping chimp gestures with the spoken langauge as thought they were the same or equal. "Gestures" is one thing: "langauge is yet another. All they have in common is that both are forms of communication. But then, so are facial gestures. Do they call them "and instinctive language?" No.
as you are doubtless aware several researchers have taught chimpanzees to communicate using sign language, plastic shapes and computer symbols. None of these researchers has , to my knowledge, claimed that they displayed the full array of features that charcaterise human language. However, they clearly do exceed simple 'gestures' and as such are significant to an understanding of how language developed in humans.
I am wondering how a belief system (religion) can become common without being adopted
With Gavin's tolerance I think he means this: if we adopt a belief we take it on to replace another. We are converted to that new way of thinking. Alternatively the belief becomes common, because individuals are raised with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With Gavin's tolerance I think he means this: if we adopt a belief we take it on to replace another. We are converted to that new way of thinking. Alternatively the belief becomes common, because individuals are raised with it.

 

Yes, when people adopt a religion, they are always replacing another religion! The belief becomes common because people like to believe in common. "Common" was not very descriptive of early Christianity, however, because wherever it spread, it divided. Only in Western Europe did unity develop because of the exhalting of the Bishop of Rome into the "infallable Pope." What keeps it going, as you say, is passing it on generation after generation.

 

charles, HOME PAGE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you want to discuss the evolutionary origins of language, or the origins and persistence of religious belief?

 

In my opinion, language evolved mostly to replace lost methods of communication like smell which atrophied when our eyeballs moved forward, taking up more and more space in the nasal cleft. Communication was important for a non-specialised hunter lacking large teeth or claws, because in order to successfully hunt, they had to do so in packs. They had to know where there teammates were, and what their intentions was. Apparently, language stems from the same part of the brain that organises body language. It might be that body language came first, and language second, as a means to alert others that you are about to 'speak'. Like, for instance, a grunt which draws attention would be followed by elaborate bodily motions of intent. When you speak over the telephone and start waving your arms around as an aid to communication, its a throwback to the cave-days. But be honest now, we all do it!

 

If you want to discuss the origins of religion, however, that's a different story altogether. In my mind, religion is merely an illustration of how inquisitive we are. We need explanations for weird phenomena. Something or somebody must be responsible for lighting. So we invent religion because our scientific understanding of the underlying principles might be lacking. But our clever brains demand an answer. For the time being, religion did amicably. Until you reach a point where hocus pocus don't do no more. But, in the absence of a strong central government, religion serves very well as a societal organising force, and shouldn't merely be discounted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boar: You wrote "we invent religion because our scientific understanding of the underlying principles might be lacking. But our clever brains demand an answer. For the time being, religion did amicably.""

 

I agree completely. You also well described the evolutionary process that brought about language. What I have stated above ties it all together. Once language developed, the hunting-gathering groups all developed religions because the members of each followed the alpha males for cues. Each group had its own religion. To believe different was to cast oneself outside of the group and hence to face starvation and death. And gradually, the best religion spread among the groups in a survival of the fittest evolutionary process. Yes, religions are also subject to evolution!

 

charles, HOME PAGE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would seem humans created language because the numerous grunts, banging on things, and hand gestures were not sufficient to relay the information. Many of these were lilely also expressed in symbol writings. Verbal language likely began during the latter part of the nomad days, before humans set up camps and towns, wherest spoken language would play a pivitol role in future writings.

 

It is likely no accident the 6 or so musical rhythm types we hear today are very similar in stacato and structure to the core languages of today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would seem humans created language because the numerous grunts, banging on things, and hand gestures were not sufficient to relay the information. Many of these were lilely also expressed in symbol writings. Verbal language likely began during the latter part of the nomad days, before humans set up camps and towns, wherest spoken language would play a pivitol role in future writings.

 

It is likely no accident the 6 or so musical rhythm types we hear today are very similar in stacato and structure to the core languages of today.

 

I found this thread of interest :) I know that in language and cognitive development, a human being will not develop his language and/or language use unless he is compelled to do so by an external locus. When communities who do not share the same language come into the contact and must co-exist, two notable behaviours occur followed by rapid changes in languages and usage by both groups: 1) a certain faction will "silence themselves", unwilling to communicate in a defensive reaction designed to protect a sense of identity and unity 2) a certain faction will actively engage speakers of the other community and seek to acquire the new language form 3) both factions of both communities will, literally, spend a lot of time "talking about it" if both communities are, in fact, interacting at all.

The relatively lightning-speed reaction causes changes in language, language use, social organisation, production of material culture, and, in governed societies, changes in policy, practice, culture, and governance.

This language behavior and the resulting behavioral changes can be seen for all species, across the board, that communicate through language in any form. If the premise that, in order to develop cognitively and linguistically, we must be challenged to do so or we will not grow (Vygotsky) is valid, then the explanation for the "evolution" (an unfortunate label when applied to language) of language is definitely that of development being primarily and profoundly, if not fundamentally, the result of imposition on one language group by another in some form or fashion. There is also a phase of refinement in acquisition, a phase where new terminology, new expression of concepts, and even formation of new concepts occurs in the ideology of the speakers. What is true of every child acquiring language is true on the macro level of every community, group, and society having to negotiate social interaction through language. It is particularly marked where the social interaction involves groups previously unknown to each other, or when a group makes an abrupt change in economic or geographic condition for some reason.

That being said, we may not know what the implications are, but effectively, despite a human's enhanced capacity for communication and communicative techniques, people talk and develop language only when they have a reason to. Language is something so taken for granted that is thought of as almost emerging spontaneously as if pre-made. Communication without language is the young child's preferred means, and even encouragement toward using language often is lost on them until the pressure of cognitive demands externally forces them to devise a strategy for language use and sophistication of communication. They find out they can't adequately get their needs met and rise to the occasion, basically.

Reference studies on feral and autistic children to see what happens when an individual shuns or has limited access to social interaction over an extended period of time, and on the selective mutism of abused, neglected, or deprived individuals. Also, reference material on the encagement of primates in multi-special environments (the "pet store" studies, 1970's).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A fascinating point to remember as humans learn and use language is that we "genetically" posess the capability to learn and use new langauges. And this is large part explains why there are thousands of dielects and slang variations of language. Yes - the languages we choose to adopt most is selective/discrimniatory.

 

My second major point I'd like to make here is with the universality of "rhythm" as a language, and how music and percussion are so widely received. We speak, walk, and conduct ourselves in rhythmic patterns like animals, and thus are very connected to rhythmic expression whether it be in music, dance, sports, or in speaking. It's our language code!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Verbal language likely began during the latter part of the nomad days, before humans set up camps and towns,

 

Linguistics is a specific scientific field and the concensus among the experts is that human speech-language goes back more than 100,000 years. We were not nomads then! Nomads are a people who range large areas with their herds. That began less than 10,000 years ago. Until then we were hunting-gathering people. :) One should not guess in science forums.

 

charles, HOME PAGE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...goes back more than 100,000 years. We were not nomads then! Nomads are a people who range large areas with their herds. That began less than 10,000 years ago.

Au contraire! Roughly 10,000 years ago, we invented agriculture, which made the first permanent settlements possible.

:) One should not guess in science forums.

Touche.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Au contraire! Roughly 10,000 years ago, we invented agriculture, which made the first permanent settlements possible.

 

Touche.

 

EXACTLY RIGHT, animal husbandry occurred approximately the same time as agriculture. Nomads were those who, by herding them, adapted animals to eating on land that was unsuitable for agriculture,

 

charles, HOME PAGE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...