This blog post examines and discusses various perspectives on whether human language is simply a byproduct of intelligence or the result of adapting to the environment.
“Why do humans exist?” This is the question Richard Dawkins first posed in his book The Selfish Gene. Few can answer it clearly. However, Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, offering an answer to this question through the theory of evolution. Evolutionary theory caused tremendous shockwaves in society at the time and remains at the center of debate to this day. Yet, the debates surrounding evolution today differ from when it first emerged. Initially, evolution and creationism stood in opposition. Over time, evolution gained more support than creationism. To use a proverb, one could say that evolution, the ‘rolling stone,’ displaced creationism, the ‘embedded stone.’ In today’s academic circles, there is almost no disagreement that evolution is correct. The core of the current debate centers on the mechanisms of evolution—that is, the ways in which evolution occurs. This is also why it is called “the theory of evolution” rather than “the law of evolution.”
Darwin’s Table, written by Professor Jang Dae-ik of Korea, is a book that describes the ways of evolution in the form of a fictional debate. In this book, Team Dawkins and Team Gould engage in a heated debate about evolutionary theory. Within the broad framework of evolution, discussions on different topics unfold over the course of a week. We will focus on the first day’s debate topic: ‘Adaptation’.
The first day’s debate topic is ‘The Power of Natural Selection’, where discussions about adaptation take place. Here, adaptation refers to the outcome of the mechanism of natural selection introduced by Darwin in On the Origin of Species. In evolutionary theory, adaptation signifies cases where evolution has occurred under significant influence from natural selection. While both the Dawkins team and the Gould team agree that adaptation is a result of natural selection, they differ on the extent to which the force of natural selection is crucial. The Dawkins camp are ‘adaptationists’ who believe natural selection is a powerful force, while the Gould camp are ‘anti-adaptationists’ who view its power as relatively limited. The two camps engage in particularly heated debate over whether the human mind and behavior evolved through natural selection. For example, there was discussion on whether human language can truly be seen as having evolved through adaptation. On this point, I support the position of Dawkins’ team and believe human language evolved as a result of adaptation.
To support this claim, I will begin the discussion by refuting the article “What is the Scope and Level of Evolutionary Theory?” included in the appendix. In that article, the author supports the position of Gould’s team and argues that human language is not an adaptation. He explained that human language is a byproduct of the development of intelligence. The author presented two grounds for this. The first ground is that the human language apparatus appears in similar forms in other primates, and that other organisms also possess diverse modes of communication and the vocal organs for them. However, he argued that since human grammar is the most developed and human brain development is the highest, human language is a phenomenon arising from brain and intelligence development. The second piece of evidence cited an experiment where chimpanzees, one of the most intelligent animals, were taught human grammar to construct sentences. This demonstrated that chimpanzees, being less intelligent than humans, have limitations in acquiring language.
In summary, the appendix article argues that language emerged due to the development of the human brain and intelligence, emphasizing that less intelligent chimpanzees have limitations in acquiring language to prove this point. However, let’s consider the reverse. Language is merely one of humanity’s communication methods, and chimpanzees also possess their own means of communication. According to the appendix’s argument, one could conclude that chimpanzees cannot acquire the communication methods of humans, who are more intelligent than them. So what about humans? One might ask whether humans can acquire chimpanzees’ communication methods. Of course, humans cannot achieve complete communication with chimpanzees either. Humans also cannot fully understand chimpanzee communication methods. While we might be able to mimic them, understanding the intent behind the actions is difficult. It is only natural that chimpanzees also find human language difficult to understand. If one claims that humans developed language as a communication method due to higher intelligence, one must prove that language is a superior communication method. Furthermore, one must establish a proportional relationship where higher intelligence correlates with superior communication methods. However, chimpanzees’ communication methods might be more efficient for their lifestyle than language. Bats, for instance, communicate using ultrasonic waves. In other words, it is difficult to rank human language against the communication methods of other species. Each species communicates in the most efficient manner for its environment. Therefore, the claim that human language arose solely due to high intelligence is incorrect.
Given that all species communicate efficiently, some might counter that each species inevitably adopts a communication method suited to its organs. That is, organisms choose their communication methods based on their structure. For example, humans possess language organs that enable them to use language, while bats possess organs capable of producing ultrasonic waves, allowing them to communicate via ultrasound. Other organisms also possess communication methods suited to their own structures. Therefore, one could argue that they cannot learn the communication methods of other species. This interpretation suggests that organisms do not communicate using the most efficient method, but rather communicate using the methods they are capable of.
Of course, according to this view, one could argue that each organism developed structurally distinct communication methods. However, as mentioned in the appendix, not only humans but also primates like chimpanzees possess similar forms of language organs. So why didn’t chimpanzees choose language as their communication method? As mentioned earlier, the reason chimpanzees did not choose language is not a matter of intelligence. Because the lifestyles of chimpanzees and humans are different, their communication methods inevitably had to differ. Humans, as social animals, place great importance on relationships with others. In contrast, chimpanzees have less interaction than humans. Therefore, the lifestyles of the two species are different, and this affects their communication methods. Chimpanzees selected a communication method suited to their lifestyle that allows them to express their intentions quickly, and this can be considered a result of natural selection. Human language similarly developed through natural selection, adapted to the social lifestyle of humans. Therefore, human language is a product of adaptation.
So far, we have discussed whether human language is an adaptation or not. The position of Gould’s team argued that human language is a byproduct of intelligence development. This article refutes that opinion, clarifying that human language is not a result of intelligence development. Ultimately, language is merely a human communication method. Since other organisms also possess their own communication methods, a simple comparison of communication methods is difficult. These communication methods can be seen as the result of each organism adapting to its own environment. Human language is also a product of natural selection, adapted to the human social lifestyle. Therefore, human language is an adaptation.
