Where did different languages come from and why was there a need for them?

If things evolved and adapted to better suit the environment, then why would humans have all these different languages? This only creates a huge barrier and has absolutely no benefits.

Posted: September 8th 2009

bitbutter www

The question contains a faulty assumption about evolution; the idea that we should expect evolved animals to be perfectly suited to their environments.

Evolution is shortsighted, it doesn’t proceed with a plan. The adaptations that arise from evolution and become 'fixed’ in a population can be relied upon to be better-than-what-came before (in terms of increasing an animal’s chance of reproducing), but they cannot be relied upon to be perfect, and often they’re far from it.

To be reminded of this we just need to look at the human body. We contain many examples of bad design, which is what we expect, understanding how evolution works.

In general you’re right that species evolve to better suit their environments, but you’re wrong to assume that this means we should expect species to always appear perfectly suited to their environments, without any 'bad design’.

The question asks what the need was for different languages. This assumes that that because we observe some fact related to the biological world (in this case 'many human languages exist’), that this fact must be reflective of advantageous adaptation; that there was some problem that was directly overcome by evolved adaptations that gave rise to the situation we observe.

But this doesn’t have to be the case. Geographical isolation of a group of animals tends to lead to a build up of non-harmful differences between those groups, both biologically and culturally—in the case of humans. As long as the changes aren’t threatening the animals’ ability to reproduce, they will build up, and eventually the group will be noticably different from other populations (they might speak a different language, or have a different skin colour etc).

Here’s a good site for learning more about evolution and an excellent article about ways that the emergence of language has been understood.

Posted: September 9th 2009

See all questions answered by bitbutter

SmartLX www

Human beings had already spread far and wide by the time speech as we know it developed (certain precursors are even present in apes), which means several distant groups of humans developed their own languages independently.

After the initial development of speech, whenever one social group of humans split permanently into two each faction would continue to develop unique vocabulary and grammar, first creating separate dialects and eventually diversifying into entirely different languages.

We see some of this today in remote areas, for instance in Africa, where the farther apart two tribes are or the longer they’ve been separated, the more different their language is.

The primary effect today is the exact opposite, thanks to vastly improved communication across any distances. Diversity is being lost as people communicate with each other worldwide and are forced to break down the language barriers. In many cases languages are maintained out of sheer national pride, not pragmatism.

An early example was the Roman Empire. Latin was forced upon the people of many occupied European countries. Whereas the original languages of the Gauls, Picts, Celts, Iberians and so forth were very different, the Latin-based languages we now know as French, English and Spanish are very similar.

Nowadays the effect is even more pronounced as language is consolidated. Elders of cultures all over the world are regularly going to their graves without having passed on the old languages, because younger people are mostly using their countries’ national languages instead. It’s an unfortunate loss of culture. The new languages emerging today are deliberately constructed languages like Esperanto, Elvish and Klingon.

Language develops, word by word, to better suit their environment as you say. Diverse environments created diverse languages; this was hardly a barrier in day-to-day life before long-range communication existed and when other cultures were often fought or conquered. In the modern world it’s a huge barrier, which is why languages are now merging and dying at a tremendous rate.

In short, you don’t need to change people’s speech deliberately to rob them of the ability to communicate, like in the Tower of Babel story. You just need to separate them absolutely for a period of centuries, or millenia, then bring them back together so that they notice their linguistic differences.

Posted: September 8th 2009

See all questions answered by SmartLX


Is your atheism a problem in your religious family or school?
Talk about it at the atheist nexus forum