Riddle me this. If man evolves, how come langauge devolves?

di11on

This has always puzzled me.

How come languages start off more structured and gradually lose their structure and how do you reconcile this with evolution?

If you follow the evolutionary model, it must mean that one day, someone sat down and constructed a very organised language with rigid rules and case structures. Over time and through use, these rules became less rigid and languages lost structure. For example, the irregular verbs in all langauges are the verbs used most: I am, I have etc. Another example is the case structure in languages. Look at German which has a rigid case strucutre (16 ways (or whatever) of saying "the", simply put). English has traces of this which you can observe in old English etc. So, over time, the constructs of language get looser and looser.

How do we reconcile this with the evolutionary model? If language starts off more structured but becomes less structured over time, structure must have been put on it at a certain point in time. But evolution would suggest that man communicated initially with grunts and sounds that eventually evolved into language. Did it evolve to a certain point and then start on a downward slope again?

I'd be interested to hear ideas on this one. I'm not a linguist... the answers probably lie there...

gondorff

Humankind is now virtually telepathic. Who needs language?

Before long, it'll be emoticons only.

FionnMatthew

What makes you think language is devolving?

How do you infer from the fact of structure within language, alongside the fact of irregular verbs, etc., that at some point in the past someone sat down and created a perfect language?

Why does looser structure mean "devolution," or, in other words, worse?

And what makes you think that evolution necessarily means that things get better, rather than worse? The change of language over time is nothing more or less than linguistic evolution itself. It's not devolving - it's just evolving.

There are some who would say that the language we use today is entirely more parsimonious than, say, Old English. And though I'm not sure parsimony is a cardinal virtue for a language to have, I can see the point. Why have 16 ways to say "the" if you don't, for the vast majority of linguistic purposes, need them, and if you can say something else that gets the point across in all of the cases where you do?

But the question of whether language is getting better or worse is moot really. It's certainly changing. But it's changing for a reason - we're using it in different ways. It's being asked to do different things. Evolution, too, doesn't make species better or worse - it makes them adapt to their environment more or less effectively. Language changes according to the uses it is put to.

Structure and linguistic rules aren't put in place at some linguistic genesis-event. They are more like laws of nature than laws of conduct. They are patterns we see in our language, which we then formalize, and call a rule. But the rules arise in use. The way we use language is patterned by the uses we put it to.

So it's not the case that language is devolving. And the traditional model for evolution applies to us, if at all, in only a far more sophisticated way than it sounds you're suggesting. And so your question doesn't really make sense.

Teutorix

FionnMatthew wrote: »

What makes you think language is devolving?

How do you infer from the fact of structure within language, alongside the fact of irregular verbs, etc., that at some point in the past someone sat down and created a perfect language?

Why does looser structure mean "devolution," or, in other words, worse?

And what makes you think that evolution necessarily means that things get better, rather than worse? The change of language over time is nothing more or less than linguistic evolution itself. It's not devolving - it's just evolving.

There are some who would say that the language we use today is entirely more parsimonious than, say, Old English. And though I'm not sure parsimony is a cardinal virtue for a language to have, I can see the point. Why have 16 ways to say "the" if you don't, for the vast majority of linguistic purposes, need them, and if you can say something else that gets the point across in all of the cases where you do?

But the question of whether language is getting better or worse is moot really. It's certainly changing. But it's changing for a reason - we're using it in different ways. It's being asked to do different things. Evolution, too, doesn't make species better or worse - it makes them adapt to their environment more or less effectively. Language changes according to the uses it is put to.

Structure and linguistic rules aren't put in place at some linguistic genesis-event. They are more like laws of nature than laws of conduct. They are patterns we see in our language, which we then formalize, and call a rule. But the rules arise in use. The way we use language is patterned by the uses we put it to.

So it's not the case that language is devolving. And the traditional model for evolution applies to us, if at all, in only a far more sophisticated way than it sounds you're suggesting. And so your question doesn't really make sense.

I was thinking about this last night and came up with the same conclusion.
Who is to say that what language experiences is actually a devolution?

skelliser

well said FionnMatthew!
all i can add is that evolution is not one set path.

experiMental

language in general devolves mainly because:
1.) it becomes more efficient, i.e think of all the obsolete phrases of English language and think how much more logical the structure of language is becoming

2.) if you're saying about language in general, think of all the languages that have become extinct in the last 100 years - either because they were cumbersome and long-winded or they were discouraged.

Language is becoming a lot more "boring" and functional rather than more aesthetic - compare a modern fiolm script with a Shakespearian play.

di11on

Interesting replies...

It's the loss of structure which puzzles me more... I guess I confused the issue a little by implying this meant "worse".

It seems to be generally accepted from the previous posts that language seems to loose structure. This could certainly mean it becomes more efficient, but it's the fact that language, over time becomes less structured.

If this is the case, then there must be one of two options:

Option 1: Langauge started of structured and then gradually lost this structure over time?

Option 2: Langauge evolved to a point of maximum structure but not optimal efficiency and then the structure was traded for efficiency over time.

It's hard to reconcile option 1 as it would seem to imply some sort of intervention. Similar to the laws of thermodynamics, structure doesn't happen on it's own. Option 2 seems sort of contrived.

Any thoughts?

Teutorix

di11on wrote: »

Interesting replies...

It's the loss of structure which puzzles me more... I guess I confused the issue a little by implying this meant "worse".

It seems to be generally accepted from the previous posts that language seems to loose structure. This could certainly mean it becomes more efficient, but it's the fact that language, over time becomes less structured.

If this is the case, then there must be one of two options:

Option 1: Langauge started of structured and then gradually lost this structure over time?

Option 2: Langauge evolved to a point of maximum structure but not optimal efficiency and then the structure was traded for efficiency over time.

It's hard to reconcile option 1 as it would seem to imply some sort of intervention. Similar to the laws of thermodynamics, structure doesn't happen on it's own. Option 2 seems sort of contrived.

Any thoughts?

the point you made in option one makes sense to me, as language started with a small, tightly structured vocabulary of particular grunts or sounds. as language continued to develop the grunts became words and the vocabulary increased in size and the language maintained structure. when it became so far developed with the vocabulary increasing constantly, the language begins to loose structure and to increase in efficiency allowing better use if the wider vocabulary.

that's just my opinion as to how its happening, but I'm no linguist and I may be totally wrong.

brianthebard

Why do you assume that language starts off more structured and becomes less so? Have you read Chaucer, or other Medieval texts? If so you will see the low regard for spelling and the multiple spellings of the same word, often within the same text. This is just one simple example, but spelling is seen by many as the bedrock of language. However this was never the case that it was always structured and rigid.

johnnyskeleton

In the same way that humans evolved from simple organisms to the complex beings we are today, so too did language evolve from a two word lexicon (grunt and arrgh) to the tongue that Shakespeare spake.

In the same way that it is the sum of little mutations that brought us along that path, the languages we speak have become great because of similar little mutations.

EamonnKeane

Languages spoken by a small number of people can attain great complexity as all speakers are in contact and can learn changes as they happen.

Elevated, literary language is purposefully more complex e.g. Vulgar Latin had far less inflection than Classical

Zillah

The evolution of language has absolutely nothing to do with Darwinian Evolution. Our ability to communicate verbally is an evolutionary trait, and subject to the principles of evolution. The way in which language itself develops is not.

If we were all born with a genetically programmed language and we charted the development of that over millions of years then yes, it'd have something to do with evolution, but we're not so it doesn't.

The very question is flawed.

seamus

EamonnKeane wrote: »

Languages spoken by a small number of people can attain great complexity as all speakers are in contact and can learn changes as they happen.

Dammit, and I had a great statistic for that which has gone out of my head. Something to do with a smallish island which they found in the pacific a good few years back. It had a population of around 10,000, all tribal and all very separated from eachother. They had nearly 200 distinct spoken languages between them.

I would imagine that language itself adapts to suit the society which it serves. So as our need for faster communication increases and our need to talk efficiently increases, the superfluous parts of the language get left at the roadside.

I've noticed a tendancy towards contextual communication, where a sentence gets condensed into a small number of words, and can completely change meaning depending on the context. I personally love it because it exposes a whole different level of human communication which we've always used, but never exploited quite so much.

Of course, I imagine it poses problems for people who may not be as adapt at reading behind the words - people with autism for exampe.

English seems to be ideally suited for this because the rules of the language have always been loose and English speakers themselves are very tolerant of mistakes or alterations made when speaking the language.

Mark Hamill

di11on wrote: »

This has always puzzled me.

How come languages start off more structured and gradually lose their structure and how do you reconcile this with evolution?

If you follow the evolutionary model, it must mean that one day, someone sat down and constructed a very organised language with rigid rules and case structures. Over time and through use, these rules became less rigid and languages lost structure. For example, the irregular verbs in all langauges are the verbs used most: I am, I have etc. Another example is the case structure in languages. Look at German which has a rigid case strucutre (16 ways (or whatever) of saying "the", simply put). English has traces of this which you can observe in old English etc. So, over time, the constructs of language get looser and looser.

How do we reconcile this with the evolutionary model? If language starts off more structured but becomes less structured over time, structure must have been put on it at a certain point in time. But evolution would suggest that man communicated initially with grunts and sounds that eventually evolved into language. Did it evolve to a certain point and then start on a downward slope again?

I'd be interested to hear ideas on this one. I'm not a linguist... the answers probably lie there...

Probably something to do with the fact that language doesnt come under the same evolutionary model as humanities evolution, as language isnt a biological entity. The ability to make the wide range of noises needed for a language comes under biological evolution, but the interpretation of the noise made dont.
Seeing as the interpretation of the noises is actually decided by mankinds intelligence, this makes the "evolution of language" actually a form of Intelligent Design. No wonder its falling apart

leopardus

You totally misunderstand evolution. Evolution isn't a uni-directional ladder to greater complexity/intelligence with Homo sapiens sitting at the top; the pinacle of evolution. People tend to look at the animal kingdom in such terms; low intelligence ( woodlouse) = 'unevolved', higher itelligence (Dolphin)= More evolved. This is ridiculous. All living things, as far as we know, share a common ancestor. All living things alive today have been evolving, along different paths, since this common ancestor.
Richard Dawkins makes the intersting analogy that if elephants were to view evolution in a similar fashion they would base a species complexity ('evolved-ness') on the length of their nose (sounds ridiculous, no!); The elephant world view would be humans = not very evolved, tapir = more evolved, elephant = most evolved, sitting smugly at the top of the ladder.
So there is no such thing as "devolving"; only evolving. At some point in our evolutionary history we lost our prehensile tail, a beautifully complex and useful tool, this wasn't 'devolution'! Whales and dolphins lost their legs, as did snakes. Eyes are lost in cave dwelling species, amazingly complex organs lost due to the two 'engines' of evolution; natural selection and genetic drift. This is all part of the evolutionary process. The whole premise of your arguement is flawed.

leopardus

If we were all born with a genetically programmed language and we charted the development of that over millions of years then yes, it'd have something to do with evolution, but we're not so it doesn't

Our brains are 'genetically programmed' to understand and use language. And you could have charted this development over millions of years. The use of language has absolutely everything to do with evolution. But evolution simply doesn't happen on the scale and in they way pressumed.

A Primal Nut

di11on wrote: »

This has always puzzled me.

How come languages start off more structured and gradually lose their structure and how do you reconcile this with evolution?

If you follow the evolutionary model, it must mean that one day, someone sat down and constructed a very organised language with rigid rules and case structures. Over time and through use, these rules became less rigid and languages lost structure. For example, the irregular verbs in all langauges are the verbs used most: I am, I have etc. Another example is the case structure in languages. Look at German which has a rigid case strucutre (16 ways (or whatever) of saying "the", simply put). English has traces of this which you can observe in old English etc. So, over time, the constructs of language get looser and looser.

How do we reconcile this with the evolutionary model? If language starts off more structured but becomes less structured over time, structure must have been put on it at a certain point in time. But evolution would suggest that man communicated initially with grunts and sounds that eventually evolved into language. Did it evolve to a certain point and then start on a downward slope again?

I'd be interested to hear ideas on this one. I'm not a linguist... the answers probably lie there...

You haven't thought about this very much have you. I'm no linguist either but its quite obvious that:

1) At the beginning, 1 word existed for the word 'the' in German - more evolved over time.

2) The reason it was structured at the beginning was because it was so simple. There is no structure needed to say 'hungry' or 'hunt' or whatever humans said at the start. Then, more words evolved. Sometimes, words for the same meaning evolved independently, perhaps in different tribes in the same country, hence multiple words with the same meaning. More ways (supposed to be simpler although not always the case) of saying the same thing evolved. More things to say evolved, as more words were needed to describe different thing.

As most of this stuff evolved independently, you get a different range of sounds, you get different languages, different regional dialects, different accents, different variations, etc.

Incidentally, in reference to the original subject title:

1) Do you seriously believe language has devolved - that we started with some complicated, structured language of 1,000s of words?
2) Evolution of language has nothing to do with evolution of man. In theory, evolution could lead to more advanced linguistic techniques and sounds, etc; but there is no reason to believe that the earliest humans couldn't understand language we have today, if they were thought.

Zillah

leopardus wrote: »

Our brains are 'genetically programmed' to understand and use language. And you could have charted this development over millions of years. The use of language has absolutely everything to do with evolution. But evolution simply doesn't happen on the scale and in they way pressumed.

Yes but he's not talking about language use in that very general sense; he's specifically referring to the rules and vocabulary of any given language.