Because language is just like evolution only without sex

[Giliell]

It is something that has been spinning on my mind for some time so I decided to finally write it down and put up for discussion.

It has always struck me as amazing how language developement resembles biological evolution. This is not to propose any "supermechanism", just about comparing, talking about the differences, telling me that it's crap.

1. Just like life, all languages must have had one very simple common ancestor spoken by our ancestors in Africa

2. As humankind spread across the world, the different groups took their language with them. Just like we have basic forms, groups, families and species of animals, we have families and "species" of language.

3. Just like different species can't succesfully breed with each other, speakers of different languages can't communicate with each other. The closer languages are, the more possible understanding is, like Spanish and Italian.

4. The closer languages are in their origin, the more similarities they share. French is closer to Spanish than German, just like a Fox is closer to a dog than a cat, but French is closer to German than Suaheli just like the fox is closer to the cat than the frog

5. Every actual performance of language is like biological reproduction. There is variation. One variety can become the dominant form. In many countries a regional dialect has become the dominant standard.

6. Like humans use artificial breeding in biology, they use such techniques in language. Examples here are the Nazis "Kristallnacht" for the first pogroms against the jews and the wonderful euphemism "colateral damage".

Main differences (well, apart from the sex)

1. We can "interbreed" totally different languages to make creole or pigin languages

2. We can revive dead languages like Latin (Oh had they just let it rest)

3. We can make new languages from scratch

 

[Squawk]

Language is my usual example for someone who doesn't understand shared ancestry, the two are extremely similar, though of course language evolves much faster than a biological system. Language could be thought of as something of a meta meme I suppose.

 

[sgrunterundt]

Language is my usual example for someone who doesn't understand shared ancestry, the two are extremely similar, though of course language evolves much faster than a biological system. Language could be thought of as something of a meta meme I suppose.

Why meta? Languages are prime examples of memes.

 

[kenandkids]

I often use language as an example when explaining evolution concepts. It is accelerated to a degree that most can see the parallels.

 

[Squawk]

Language is my usual example for someone who doesn't understand shared ancestry, the two are extremely similar, though of course language evolves much faster than a biological system. Language could be thought of as something of a meta meme I suppose.

Why meta? Languages are prime examples of memes.

Language is the main vector by which other memes are propagated in our society.

 

[sgrunterundt]

[Language is the main vector by which other memes are propagated in our society.

Plenty of memes are propagated through non-verbal means. We copy each others behaviour patters, gestures and fashion, pass on music etc.

Often the language being spoken matters little to a meme being transferred, only the meaning of the communication.

Still you are to some extend right.

 

[Squawk]

Still you are to some extend right.

Thats about the best I can hope for I'd argue that the majority of memes are verbal, though.

 

[obsidianavenger]

in my experience, people seem to have an easy enough time understanding it as parallel to evolution, but a very hard time accepting that if they take that position they have no basis for their grammar nazi-ism. lol.

 

[Andiferous]

Giliell: You obviously have more background as the linguist here (I can't even learn another language if my life depended on it). But as to the philosophy of language and communication, I wonder firstly, to what extent the success of every language depends on understanding the culture of its origin; and secondly, whether there is any language in the world that, more than others, lends itself better to accuracy of verbal communication above the rest. Obviously, we'd have to take into account that most languages depend on intonation and gestural cues and whatnot, but in many cases phrases and colloquialisms also make reference to cultural mythology and concepts not easily gleaned by an outsider. For example, English in Britain is quite different than in north America. (Besides being adorable) I think there are underlying layers of subtext not apparent here, and all kind of cutesy puns and "secret" codes. Apples and pears!

So one of my questions would be:

If the romantic languages are fairly closely related, is their deliverance and are their cultures also closely related?

Can one make a new language without a cultural bias - and why did Esperanto fail?

 

[kenandkids]

in my experience, people seem to have an easy enough time understanding it as parallel to evolution, but a very hard time accepting that if they take that position they have no basis for their grammar nazi-ism. lol.

Having people like texters and lazy students mangle the language is much like what one could expect "guided" evolution look like. They capriciously decide what to mangle and destroy, and then expect the world to live with the results.

 

[Andiferous]

in my experience, people seem to have an easy enough time understanding it as parallel to evolution, but a very hard time accepting that if they take that position they have no basis for their grammar nazi-ism. lol.

Having people like texters and lazy students mangle the language is much like what one could expect "guided" evolution look like. They capriciously decide what to mangle and destroy, and then expect the world to live with the results.

The internet taught me how to misspell words I'd never, ever misspelled before.

 

[kenandkids]

The internet taught me how to misspell words I'd never, ever misspelled before.

ROFL Me tue!

 

[Andiferous]

Glad to hear I'm not alone when it comes to internet speach.

 

[obsidianavenger]

in my experience, people seem to have an easy enough time understanding it as parallel to evolution, but a very hard time accepting that if they take that position they have no basis for their grammar nazi-ism. lol.

Having people like texters and lazy students mangle the language is much like what one could expect "guided" evolution look like. They capriciously decide what to mangle and destroy, and then expect the world to live with the results.

ehhhh its no more guided than an unregulated economy. while it does involve people making conscious choices, their thoughts in regard to it are pretty much confined to their specific case. they don't really consider how their choices will effect those of others or what the effect on the language as a whole will be. other than the arbitrary rules taught in school and your aesthetic preferences.... what is there to mangle?

 

[Andiferous]

other than the arbitrary rules taught in school and your aesthetic preferences.... what is there to mangle?

Communication.

Language has its own limitations; text based language is worse; and inventing spelling and grammar is sure to burst the bubble. Reading english text written before the official "dictionary" was invented is really is like sticking pins in yourself. I lie not.

 

[obsidianavenger]

other than the arbitrary rules taught in school and your aesthetic preferences.... what is there to mangle?

Communication.

true dat. my mantra: theres no such thing as a wrong use of language, only an inefficient one.

it seems like t he more mass communication there is though, the more the language will tend to semi-standardize itself, just because there will be no isolated pockets of language users, and everyone will be exposed to almost the same thing as children.

to be perfectly honest though, i'm probably a little biased, because i sucked at spelling as a kid, even though i read constantly and aced all my other subjects. some kind of weird mental block no doubt lol. and now i can intellectually justify my distaste for spelling!

 

[Andiferous]

I rather suck with spelling too, but I've got a double whammy being Canadian and having multiple options with every "s" and "z".

You have to admit, regular exposure to proper spelling would probably help internalise it. The reverse could do the reverse as well... or has for me.

There's no justification for being mean, but no harm in paying attention.

 

[Giliell]

Giliell: You obviously have more background as the linguist here (I can't even learn another language if my life depended on it). But as to the philosophy of language and communication, I wonder firstly, to what extent the success of every language depends on understanding the culture of its origin; and secondly, whether there is any language in the world that, more than others, lends itself better to accuracy of verbal communication above the rest. Obviously, we'd have to take into account that most languages depend on intonation and gestural cues and whatnot, but in many cases phrases and colloquialisms also make reference to cultural mythology and concepts not easily gleaned by an outsider. For example, English in Britain is quite different than in north America. (Besides being adorable) I think there are underlying layers of subtext not apparent here, and all kind of cutesy puns and "secret" codes. Apples and pears!

So one of my questions would be:

If the romantic languages are fairly closely related, is their deliverance and are their cultures also closely related?

Can one make a new language without a cultural bias - and why did Esperanto fail?

I haven't forgotten your questions, but I just got the scarlet fever (not the letter) and my brain isn't working correctly

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Ummm... language is just like evolution INCLUDING sex.

Seriously, why do you think people learn other languages? How do you think blended dialects happen? People hook up!

 

[Giliell]

If the romantic languages are fairly closely related, is their deliverance and are their cultures also closely related?

Ohhhhhkay, I'll try
The relationship between language and culture is a complicated thing because it happens on so many lavels and sub-levels.
It think we can make the fair assumption that changes in culture are reflected in changes in language.
An example would be the uprise of the pronoun "I" after the enlightenment. Not that it didn't exist before, but the enlightenment proposed that people were individuals with the capacity to think and reason for themselves. Before that, you find expressinions like "me thinks" quite frequently.

Culture expresses itself in language. Every sub-culture has its own words and expressions. They change quickly and disappear again, leaving only their "fossils" behind in literature and movies. The words our parents used to shock our grandparents are funny to us at best.

But there's more to culture than language. Language might be the one thing that makes the small differences, but not the "broad picture"
Geography plays a role, history plays one, too.
I live in a corner of Germany that allows me to travel to 2 different countries with different languages within an hour. But still in many aspects of culture they are closer to me than my fellow Germans in Hamburg or Berlin.
I would also suspect that most English people would share more cultural aspects with my dad who doesn't speak English than with somebody in Mumbay although they do speak the same language.
So, are the romanic cultures also closely related? Yes, but I don't think that this is mainly due to the language but to a close relation in history and geography.Romanian culture is more different to Spanish culture than Spanish is from Portuguese culture because it's quite some way off and I would also argue that Argentine culture is closer to Brasilian culture than to Spanish culture.

Can one make a new language without a cultural bias - and why did Esperanto fail?

Sure, Esperanto seems to be one. But I think its failure is partly due to that lack of cultural background and bias. And due to its lack of speakers.
The lingua franca (that's the language spoken by most people to communicate with people from other backgrounds) of a time depends on cultural and/or economic/political hegemony. Latin was the LF of the classic period, French was the language of culture during the early modern period and it lost its status with the fall of France after the Napoleonic wars and the rise of the British Empire. But English would have dwindled after WWI if it hadn't been for the rise of the USA.
That's what Esperanto is lacking. It doesn't give you an economic/political advantage to speak Esperanto just like it adds to your job qualification in any non-English speaking country to have a good command of Emglish.
And it doesn't give you access to another culture just like any other language you learn for your holidays gives you.

@Joe
Yeah, but it's not like mummy pronoun and daddy pronoun spend some time with each other and then produce a slighty different baby-pronnoun