Did human language evolve by natural selection or was it shaped by the development of intelligence and the brain through social conventions? This article challenges Steven Pinker’s theory of linguistic evolution and argues that language is not the result of simple evolution, but a complex system that is the result of a combination of intelligence and social factors.
In nature, humans exist at the top of the ecosystem. Unlike other species, we are able to reign as the top predator because we have language. More than just a means of communication, language allows humans to form complex societies, accumulate culture and knowledge, and transmit information across generations. But just as bats use the Doppler effect to track flying insects and migratory birds use constellation movements to navigate, human language is no different from many of nature’s mysteries. Language is not just a human privilege, but one of the many mysteries of the natural world. But did language evolve like any other natural mystery? The origins of language have been debated by many scholars, with some emphasizing the evolutionary nature of language, while others argue against it. In this article, I’ll introduce and refute Steven Arthur Pinker’s arguments and argue that we cannot say that human language evolved, and furthermore, I’ll present a scenario of how human language and grammar could have developed if not through natural selection.
First, let’s clarify what we mean by “evolution”. It makes sense that bacteria in the early stages of life would not have been able to speak. After all, the various species that we see today have diverged through evolution according to Darwin’s theory of evolution, and the human species has language as a result. From this superficial perspective, the question of whether human language is evolutionary or not is not that important. In this article, we’re talking about the evolution of language: does the development of language include an element of natural selection? Flying fish jump out of the water and return to the water because of the physical law of gravity, not because of any natural selection. Human bones happen to be white because calcium was selected for in the process of natural selection to make human bones harder, and calcium happened to be white. If we were to argue that language evolved, we could say that language is the equivalent of calcium, and vice versa for the color white. In his book The Language Instinct, Pinker agrees with Avram Noam Chomsky’s claim that human language is an instinct and elaborates on it. He argues that children have an innate sense of a “universal grammar,” a blueprint that is common to the grammar of all languages. This is evidenced by the fact that children quickly and completely acquire the internal grammar system by listening to adults speak, and by the fact that the grammar system has complex but sophisticated rules. Using language is as instinctive and innate to humans as spinning a web is to a spider. There is even a case where a child born deaf was able to develop a more grammatically complete sign language after watching the clumsy sign language of his parents who first learned sign language. From this, we can infer that even if we feed an incomplete language into a program called universal grammar, the output will be a language with a complete grammatical system. However, Pinker argues for language evolution differently than Chomsky. His argument is based on two main points. First, the brain’s structures governing language are highly complex, and second, the existence of the FOXP2 gene, also known as the language gene, has been confirmed. The eye is a universally recognized adaptation that evolved from light-sensing skin cells. Such a complex structure can only be explained by natural selection, unless one believes in a creator. Similarly, the brain, with its highly complex language capabilities, can only be explained by natural selection. As for its purpose, he explains that natural selection does not require a huge gain, as it takes many generations, but communication is great for survival, cooperation, and alliance, and language is a very important tool in this process. In addition, the discovery of the FOXP2 gene provides substantial evidence that it can be interpreted as a gene that was mutated when other great apes and humans diverged from a common ancestor. First, the FOXP2 gene is not substantive evidence. Because a gene does not determine only one trait, the FOXP2 gene could be associated with other abilities besides language. In fact, an MIT experiment found that chimpanzees and rats also have genes that correspond to the FOXP2 gene, and when the human FOXP2 gene was added to mice, the intelligence of the mice increased. The existence of this gene suggests that one of the many phenotypes of the gene can be naturally selected for. That phenotype doesn’t necessarily have to be language. Since intelligence was naturally selected for, it could be interpreted that language in the same gene also developed. In 1920, two girls, Kamara (8 years old) and Amara (6 years old), were found in a wolf den in Middunapru, India. It was believed that they had been abandoned by human society and were accidentally found and raised by a wolf pack. When the girls were found by Christian evangelist Josephine, they were unable to stand due to weak ankle joints, were running on all fours, responded to the howls of dogs and wolves, but had no language. Later attempts to teach them to speak ended up with them mimicking a few words but not being able to communicate. If the FOXP2 gene determines the ability to have a grammatical system, did they lose the gene? Or did they just happen to be raised by a pack of wolves that didn’t have the gene? Let’s talk about the complexity of the brain. We agree that the brain structures responsible for language and the “universal grammar” that young children have are very complex. However, I don’t think we have a good explanation for why language was naturally selected for. Why did language have to be so complex if it was just for communication and cooperation? It’s enough to be able to understand each other and understand intentions while using language. However, it’s very difficult to do this without the use of exclamation points and various auxiliaries that we have in our current grammar. If language has been naturally selected, how can we explain these things? Natural selection also doesn’t fully explain how the individual with the first grammatical mutation developed it. Sure, that individual’s brothers, sisters, and neighbors may have had similar mutations, but their representations of a single “narrative” would have been different at first. This requires social rules. This is not solved by the human ability to speak. If human language is not the result of natural selection, how can we say that it developed? I believe that it developed through natural selection by increasing intelligence and increasing brain size. The scenario is as follows. First, children, who have organs called vocal cords, hear different sounds coming out of their mouths and find it curious, so they start making different sounds depending on the situation. At first, they just cry, but then they learn to say HELP when they want to communicate danger, HARD when they’re in pain, and WOW when they’re happy. As their intelligence increases due to natural selection, they’re able to express themselves in increasingly complex ways. Of course, their expressions may have been different during this process. But given their increased intelligence, they would have formed a primary language through social commitments. Language then develops through children born with a universal grammar. In other words, it’s more plausible to assume that language itself was naturally selected for than to assume that rising intelligence and larger brains were naturally selected for.
We can make different sounds and trigger certain thoughts or feelings in other people’s heads. In this sense, language is a marvel and one of the traits that distinguishes us from other animals. But just because it’s amazing doesn’t mean it’s the result of evolution. Trying to fit language into the mold of evolution and natural selection is like trying to fit a circle into a square and claiming that the circle fits because it fits into the square. The complexity of language and the need for social conventions, which are not explained by natural selection, suggest that human language is not simply instinctive or evolutionary.
