The Social Evolution of Language, and the Language of Social Evolution

Abstract

Recent years have witnessed an increased interest in the evolution of the human capacity for language. Such a project is necessarily interdisciplinary. However, that interdisciplinarity brings with it a risk: terms with a technical meaning in their own field are used wrongly or too loosely by those from other backgrounds. Unfortunately, this risk has been realized in the case of language evolution, where many of the terms of social evolution theory (reciprocal altruism, honest signaling, etc.) are incorrectly used in a way that suggests that certain key fundamentals have been misunderstood. In particular the distinction between proximate and ultimate explanations is often lost, with the result that several claims made by those interested in language evolution are epistemically incoherent. However, the correct application of social evolution theory provides simple, clear explanations of why language most likely evolved and how the signals used in languagewords -remain cheap yet arbitrary.

Evolutionary Theory and the Ultimate–Proximate Distinction in the Human Behavioral Sciences

“…Our point is only that they describe how cooperation might work and not why it exists. Similar issues occur in the literature on the evolution of language (Scott-Phillips, 2007).…”

Why Do Word Blends with Near-Synonymous Composites Exist and Persist? The Case of Guesstimate, Chillax, Ginormous and Confuzzled

“…Language is a tool for meaning (Altmann, 1997) and developed from an evolutionary need to communicate complex information (Scott -Phillips, 2007). It can be diffi cult to defi ne a concept with a single word (e.g.…”

Genomic Imprinting As a Window into Human Language Evolution

“…However, language is used in a range of social interactions, some of which may appear relatively selfish and others relatively altruistic (Table ). Consequently, the aggregate effect of language on social partners is not clear; indeed, this topic has been the source of much debate and confusion . Discriminating between these two possibilities is key for our understanding of the evolution of language, including how and why language evolved, why it has the properties it does, and why it is used the way it is.…”

“…Consequently, the aggregate effect of language on social partners is not clear; indeed, this topic has been the source of much debate and confusion. [33] Discriminating between these two possibilities is key for our understanding of the evolution of language, including how and why language evolved, why it has the properties it does, and why it is used the way it is. One way to solve this problem would be to quantify and aggregate the different fitness effects of language.…”