Evolution and Language

[Zzyzx]

.
Discussion of biological evolution in these threads has at least two major pitfalls. 1) It is an emotional subject for those who think it conflicts with their religious beliefs, 2) It is a complex topic that cannot be adequately understood by casual reading of non-professional sources.

To reduce emotion and avoid need for scientific background, let's look at it from a more neutral stance.

We are all probably aware that languages change (evolve) over time and distance. New words are introduced, words are used differently, definitions are changed, some words drop out of use; also pronunciation changes as does sentence structure. There may be significant differences in just one generation, and great differences over multiple generations / hundreds of years.

Here is a hypothetical situation that has probably played out in real life thousands of times.

People inhabiting a small valley speak one language. Some of the people migrate across a mountain range to a different valley. The two groups have no contact and both prosper.

Over time and through generations the spoken language of both groups changes independently as new words are introduced, some words are no longer used, and some words change meaning; pronunciations vary a bit; and sentence structure changes. Nothing radical happens, no major disasters, life just goes on for generations and normal, expected changes in language occur.

After ten generations (250 years) a person from one of the groups meets someone from the other. Are they likely to be able to converse? Perhaps with difficulty? Would they after twenty generations (500 years)? Probably not – or only with great difficulty.

If the changes are large enough, linguists would identify the two as different but related languages.

Thus, two different languages developed from a common ancestral language. Neither of them developed from the other but both came from the original language that existed many generations ago (and may not exist or be spoken by anyone currently).

No abrupt chances occurred. It is not necessary to know each change or to identify "missing links". Even the timing of events is not critical to understanding that two mutually intelligible languages developed (evolved) over time very naturally by processes that we can observe happening to all languages.


Side notes:

As an example of the effect of change over time, notice how difficult it is to read Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales written 600 years ago or something written in Old English 1000+ years ago such as Beowulf

According to linguists there are 6700 recognized languages worldwide.


Questions for debate

1) Would it be irrational to say, "I acknowledge that language chances occur but I deny that those changes can produce separate languages"?

2) Is the evolution of language comparable to genetic evolution? Why?

[Haven]

Yes, the evolution of languages is a very good analogy for the evolution of biological species. Small changes add up to large ones over time, usually when populations become separated or distinct from one another.

[WinePusher]

1) Would it be irrational to say, "I acknowledge that language chances occur but I deny that those changes can produce separate languages"?

Very interesting topic. The statement as it's written is incorrect because new languages are produced through changes in already existing languages. English is an great example of this. We know that all European based languages originated from a type of Proto Indo European language that is now extinct, and English came from Proto Indo European. What were the factors that gave rise to English, particularly Old English? They were primarily social factors, such as military campaigns on the British island, contact with other languages, migrations, the principle of least effort, so on and so forth.

Having said that, it all depends on the magnitude of the change. A minor language change wouldn't necessarily lead to the birth of an entirely new language, instead it would lead perhaps to a new dialect depending upon the region and the standardized version of the language. You need major language changes along with native speakers in order for a new language to successfully sustain itself. You can get a new pidgin language if there are two or more languages groups interacting with one another, but this pidgin will surely die out unless it's passed onto children in the next generation.

2) Is the evolution of language comparable to genetic evolution? Why?

In some ways it is and in some ways it isn't. The origin of language is a mystery to linguists, just as the origin of life is a mystery to biologists. The evolution of language can be modeled using a tree like diagram (known as the Stammbaum Model) as can the evolution of life. The only difference between the two is that in evolutionary biology you have a competition factor that is absent in historical linguistics. As Chomsky discovered, humans acquire language naturally when they're children.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

1) What's rational to one may not be to another so it seems being 'rational' is as independent as one's morals
2) In a way, YES, in that it changes over time and has an original source. But NO in that it (language) is not a genetic change as is biological evolution. Basically, for the intent of a discussion, it works, but in reality, not so much.

[Zzyzx]

.

1) Would it be irrational to say, "I acknowledge that language chances occur but I deny that those changes can produce separate languages"?

Very interesting topic. The statement as it's written is incorrect because new languages are produced through changes in already existing languages.

Careful reading of the OP will note that "changes in existing languages" is EXACTLY what is described.

English is an great example of this. We know that all European based languages originated from a type of Proto Indo European language that is now extinct,

Yes, the ancestral language may no longer exist (or be used) – as indicated in the OP

They were primarily social factors, such as military campaigns on the British island, contact with other languages, migrations, the principle of least effort, so on and so forth.

Many influences produce changes in languages. Some are small others are large. So what?

Having said that, it all depends on the magnitude of the change. A minor language change wouldn't necessarily lead to the birth of an entirely new language, instead it would lead perhaps to a new dialect depending upon the region and the standardized version of the language.

As demonstrated in the OP, a series of minor changes over many generations are sufficient to produce separate languages because the total of changes make branches (developing / evolving languages) separate and distinct.

Major events or changes MAY occur, but are NOT required to produce mutual unintelligible languages.

Is it difficult to visualize that groups separated for hundreds of years experience common, expected changes in language sufficient to make them separate languages even though they came from the same parent language and did not experience ?

You need major language changes along with native speakers in order for a new language to successfully sustain itself.

Is there any reason that a series of minor changes over time could not produce as much effect as a major change (or more)?

You can get a new pidgin language if there are two or more languages groups interacting with one another, but this pidgin will surely die out unless it's passed onto children in the next generation.

Notice that the OP indicated that there was no interaction and that each language was passed from generation to generation.

2) Is the evolution of language comparable to genetic evolution? Why?

In some ways it is and in some ways it isn't. The origin of language is a mystery to linguists, just as the origin of life is a mystery to biologists.

The origin of language or of life is a very different topic from their evolution / changes

For instance, one can intelligently discuss modifications (changes / evolution) that occur or are made to a machine without knowing where and when it was made or by whom.

Opponents of evolution often attempt to derail or divert discussion by reverting to focus on origin when the topic is change. Since change in languages (or biological organisms) cannot be rationally denied, the "out" is to focus on origin (and, in theology, to supply a preconceived notion of supernatural origin of life).

The only difference between the two is that in evolutionary biology you have a competition factor that is absent in historical linguistics.

Is there no competition between languages?

As Chomsky discovered, humans acquire language naturally when they're children.

As many have observed, humans do not become Christians naturally when they are children (but only after they are taught / indoctrinated). Many children become Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc if that is what they are taught / indoctrinated to believe).

How is that related to evolution in linguistics or biology?

[1213]

Questions for debate

1) Would it be irrational to say, "I acknowledge that language chances occur but I deny that those changes can produce separate languages"?

2) Is the evolution of language comparable to genetic evolution? Why?

The evolution of language is caused by people. Language evolves, because people think it is better to speak some other way. I think it is not random development as the evolution of species is. Or is Evolution modern day Mother Earth god, who develops species?

[Clownboat]

1) Would it be irrational to say, "I acknowledge that language chances occur but I deny that those changes can produce separate languages"?

2) Is the evolution of language comparable to genetic evolution? Why?

1) IMO, yes. Acknowledging the changes, but then stating that at some point the changes will stop seems irrational. If there is no mechanism in language to stop the changes at some point, they will continue to change until they are so drastically different as to no longer be considered the same language. Would the languages share a common ancestor? Yup, just like evolution. I also am not aware of any mechanism in evolution that allows mutations, but only up to a point.

2) Yes. (Reasons stated above).

[WinePusher]

Very interesting topic. The statement as it's written is incorrect because new languages are produced through changes in already existing languages.

Careful reading of the OP will note that "changes in existing languages" is EXACTLY what is described.

It seems like we agree on this point, so what's the problem?

They were primarily social factors, such as military campaigns on the British island, contact with other languages, migrations, the principle of least effort, so on and so forth.

Many influences produce changes in languages. Some are small others are large. So what?

...

As demonstrated in the OP, a series of minor changes over many generations are sufficient to produce separate languages because the total of changes make branches (developing / evolving languages) separate and distinct.

...

Major events or changes MAY occur, but are NOT required to produce mutual unintelligible languages.

I pretty much agree with what you wrote in your OP, but you did not specify what these so called 'changes' actually are. It is important to do so, and it's important to distinguish between internal and external factors that cause language to change, as well as minor and major factors that cause language to change.

For example, you brought up issues like changes in syntax, pronunciation, semantics and neologisms. These are the visible effects of language change, they are not the causes. What causes a language to change would be external factors, such as migrations and contact with other languages and internal changes, such as the principle of least effort. So, to summarize, the cause of the language change would be factors like migration and contact with other languages while the effects of the change would be changes in sentence structure, pronunciation, etcetera.

You need major language changes along with native speakers in order for a new language to successfully sustain itself.

Is there any reason that a series of minor changes over time could not produce as much effect as a major change (or more)?

It certainly could, but does a series of minor changes over time have the ability to produce an entirely new language? I'm hesitant to say yes because 1) the printing press and language standardization has made it increasingly more difficult for language to change and 2) it's more likely that minor changes would result in a new dialect as opposed to a new language.

Notice that the OP indicated that there was no interaction and that each language was passed from generation to generation.

Right, and you believe an entirely new language could be produced without interaction with another language group? That certainly did not happen with English, English did not evolve and change in a vacuum, without any interaction with other languages.

The only difference between the two is that in evolutionary biology you have a competition factor that is absent in historical linguistics.

Is there no competition between languages?

That's a good question. Historically speaking, languages often carry around a status or reputation. Some languages are considered prestiguous while others carry no prestige whatsoever. The status and reputation of a particular language seems to occur naturally, without any competition. If you look at Europe you will see that there are many languages co-existing with one another, and in order to communicate speakers become bilingual (fluent in more than one language).

[Moses Yoder]

We can assign any meaning to a symbol. That is what we call language. A DNA strand assigns form to an organism. I do not see how these two separate items are in any way related. We are just now learning how to manipulate DNA strands. I agree it is possible for all organisms to come from one DNA strand eventually, I just believe the chance of that happening is so astronomically small that it is more likely that the universe was created by an infinite God. On the other hand, the chance of me assigning a different variable to a symbol than you do is actually very high.