Language and its relation with the Origins of Morality and Religion (página 2)

The Evolution of Language

Why do humans have this capacity and other animals don"t? Wuketits argues that our capacity for language is innate, but the diversity of languages all over the World came as a result of cultural evolution.[4] It will be very difficult for us to know the exact time when verbal language begun. As we said before, rationality played an important role in language. We can say that when the first hominids started to realize who they were (the self) and started to analyze and understand their surroundings and the others, verbal communication must have became vital for them. In Puerto Rico when someone understands something, knows a secret or wants to reveal the answer to a question and then communicate it verbally, we say to them "if you were a mute you would have exploded." I think that when our ancestors begun to rationalize things like life, survival, their surroundings and death, something began to change in them, and language was like an explosion that grew and evolved until today. It is very difficult to give a date to these events, but we can presuppose that the acquisition of this kind of knowledge could be the spark that lighted the fire.

Is there any biological evidence that can help us explain our capacity for language? Mithen in his book The Singin Neanderthals (2006) talks about the evolution of something embedded in the genome of our species that has evolved by 170,000 years ago.[5] He also alludes to another genetic study made to a large, multigenerational family identify as the KEs. This family had specific problems with grammar and producing orofacial movements of tongue and lips, making some sounds difficult to understand. What linguists are debating about in this study is "whether the KEs" language difficulties derive from a general cognitive deficit or from something specific to their language system."[6]

In 2001 one study identified a gene that caused the KE family to have these linguistic problems. This gene is known as FOXP2, and it seems that the function of it is to turn genes on and off, impacting those genes that are needed for the development of language. This gene is not unique to humans, for it is also found in many other species. For example, they can also be found in mice, and the difference of FOXP2 between humans and mice is only of three of the seven hundred amino acids that form the gene. It seems that these three amino acids are vital, showing that the malfunction of FOXP2 will have a deep impact in language.[7] Another group of geneticists study the same gene in the chimpanzee, gorilla and monkeys, and the found that there are only two different amino acids from the ones found in humans. They are proposing that these two amino acids are important for the formation of language. Mithen concludes that even though FOXP2 is not the only gene involved in the evolution of grammar, and that there must be many genes involved in the process, this study is important to understand the genetic foundation for human language.[8]

The question is; how did language evolved? How did we get from not having a language to saying words, and eventually constructing more difficult grammar sentences? Mithen argues that his "Theory of the Hmmmmm"[9] can provide an evolutionary foundation for language. He draws his ideas from linguist Alison Wray, where she says that "pre-Homo sapiens utterances were holistic and manipulative rather than compositional and referential. It can be summarize as follows:

• 1. Segmentation, the process where humans began to break up holistic phrases into separate units. This is the emergence of compositionality, the feature that makes language so much more powerful than any other communication system.

• 2. Segmentation may have arisen from the recognition of chance associations between the phonetic segments of the holistic utterance and the objects or events to which they are related."[10]

• 3. The vocal imitation and sound synaesthesia creating non-arbitrary associations between phonetic segments of holistic utterances and certain entities in the world.[11]

• 4. The use of gesture and body language with a phonetic segment of an utterance in combination with a gesture.[12]

• 5. The emergence of some words helped in the appearance of other new words.[13]

• 6. "The musicality of "Hmmmmm" would also have facilitated this process, because pitch and rhythm would have emphasized particular phonetic segments and thus increased the likelihood that they would become perceived as discrete entities with their own meanings."[14]

Why did language only evolve after 200,000 years ago?[15] According to Mithen there might be two different answers to this question, one is related to social life and the other one to human biology. Referring to the first one, it might be the case that the way societies formed there were no need for language generalizations. In other words, the only contact that the homo had was between their own, learning only what was needed to know to satisfy their own needs. Infants only learned what was passed through to them, being exposed only to a few of "Hmmmmm" speakers, with no need for generalizations. This could be true to the type of hominid and Early Human communities. The way that communities were formed provided only a few (if any) opportunities for social exchange with outside communities, reducing the need to use a more complicated form of communication than their own.[16]

It could be that the development of a more specialized economic role and social hierarchic positions that a new kind of communication with the other communities began, creating the need to have conversations with the others. This pressured the community and the individual to find forms to exchange information in unprecedented ways. Then generalizations became a need. This provides the dilemma of what are we dealing with, cause or effect; is language the cause of a more specialized economic role and the creation of social hierarchies or the contrary? Mithen will say "that we are dealing with strong feedback between the two – they bootstrapped each other to create rapid changes both in society and in communication."[17]

These developments could have been started by a genetic mutation. This mutation made possible the identification of new sounds. It seems that the process of segmentation depended in the gene FOXP2 that appeared in the modern human version approximately 200,000 years ago. This could have been combined with other genetic changes that helped the development of a more complicated form of communication.[18]

Wuketits comes to very similar conclusions when relating the evolution of [human] knowledge with the evolution of language. Some of these conclusions are:

• 1. Rational knowledge emerged late in evolution 50,000 years ago. He says that knowledge "can be characterized by elements such as verbal communication, symbols, and self reflection… it is a result of brain evolution, which has been a complex process of integration."[19]

• 2. Language is the result of organic evolution. The capacity for humans to learn a language is innate, but the learning of a certain language is the product of socio-cultural evolution.[20]

• 3. The acquisition of knowledge depends as much on biological factors as on socio-cultural factors. The way we learn is due to our biological structures, but these structures are tied to socio-cultural factors in order to develop knowledge.[21]

Language and its relation with Morality

Frans De Waal argues that there are parallels between the foundations of morality and language. A baby is not born with the ability to learn a certain language but with the capacity to learn language, the baby is also born with the capacity to learn morality. Rationality and language play an important role in the evolution of morality. In his book Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved De Waal develops what he calls Three Levels of Morality. These are:

• 1. "Building Blocks or Moral Sentiments – Human psychology provides the "building blocks of morality, such as the capacity for empathy, tendency for reciprocity, a sense of fairness, and the ability to harmonize relationships.

• 2. Social Pressure – Insisting that everyone behaves in a way that favors a cooperative group life.

• 3. Judgment and reasoning – Internalization of others" needs and goals to the degree that these needs and goals figure in our judgment of behavior, including others" behavior that does not directly touch us. Moral judgment is self-reflective and often logically reasoned."[22]

In the first two levels humans and primates share some parallels, even though there are some differences in the second one. Each and every one of the aspects that define each level are related to forms of communication (verbal, non verbal, or any way animals communicate). The one that I"m more interested in discussing is the third level, judgment and reasoning. At this level De Wall finds no parallels between humans and primates. Humans are always trying to pass judgment over their own actions and the actions of others. We rationalize what we do, trying to understand the meanings of our actions; why we do the things we do, and the way we do them. The way we can achieve this level of morality is by language. We need rationality to pass judgment over actions, but to let the other know how we feel or what we think, language is needed. High social interactions are needed to achieve this level. One of the roots of morality, says De Waal, must be social interaction. Language is at the roots of social interaction. If we pass language to other generations, we also pass morality through our judgments, and we teach them through language. He calls this level, just as Darwin called language, as "uniquely human."[23]

Language and Theological Reflection

Wuketits refers to the burials of Neanderthals and of the early Homo sapiens as the "need for metaphysical belief."[24] He will also say that humans are rational beings creating irrational belief systems. When humans are unable to understand what is happening in their surroundings, the easiest way out is to create a metaphysical power that will explain it. "Metaphysical-religious belief therefore is relative to our own nature including our need to understand external reality."[25] He quotes Caspari (1877) argument that "religion developed similarly to other expressions of the human mind in prehistoric times and that its emergences was due to particular social interactions."[26]

I disagree with Wuketits in his interpretation of "metaphysical belief" as irrational. I will argue that when we try to give an explanation using our brains, even if we arrive to a wrong conclusion, we are using our rationality. What I"m saying is that our tendency to believe is not irrational. He will also say that our tendencies to believe in a higher power are not imposed by God (or a god) but that it is only part of our nature.[27] Why our own nature would play a trick like that on us? If religiosity is only a natural tendency, why there are so many different religions and not just one? By this I mean that if religiosity is only a natural tendency, we would be inclined to have same forms of religious practices all over the world.

We can go on arguing with Wuketits about his position and probably won"t reach to an answer. Where I want to direct the attention is that language must have played an important role in the transmission of metaphysical beliefs. When the Neanderthals began to bury the death there must have been some form of communication in explaining their reasons to one another on why and how they were doing it. Shamans must have needed language to transmit their visions to others. When our ancestors were in the middle of a natural phenomenon and tried to give to it metaphysical explanations to one another, language must have played an important role in it.

In Judaism, they understood that God was the one who gave humanity the ability to communicate verbally, and that it is the same God who is in control of every language. We can see that in Genesis 11. My point is that between the beginning of religious reflection and the origins of language are deeply related. Language, rationality, moral systems, social interactions and religiosity seem to be blended in as part of the evolution of what is to be human. To finish this section I will quote Dr. Van Huysteen:

"Because we relate to our world epistemically only through the mediation of interpreted experience, it may be said that our diverse theologies, and also the sciences, offer alternative interpretations of our experience. Alternative, however, not in the sense of competing or conflicting interpretations, but of complementary interpretations of the manifold dimensions of our experience."[28]

Conclusion

We can"t give a specific time for when language became part of humanity, but we can infer through some archeological findings and interpretations some approximations on when humans started to use language. We can"t even say which language was the first one, and how it could have sounded, these are things that we can only speculate. What we can say is how important language is for the understanding of humanity, and how it molds a variety of aspects of what it means to be human. Language must be a key factor in the survival of our specie, and for the development of society and culture.

[1] Franz M. Wuketits. (1990) Evolutionary Epistemology and its Implications for Humankind. Albany, NY: State of New York University Press. 114.

[2] J. Wentzel Van Huyssteen. (2006) Alone in the World? Human Uniqueness in Science and Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co. 71.

[3] Wuketits., 115.

[4] Wuketits., 115.

[5] Steven Mithen. 2006. The Singing Neanderthals: The Origins of Music, Language, Mind, and Body. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 249.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid., 250.

[9] Hmmmmm stands for Holistic, manipulative, multi-modal, musical, and mimetic. According to Mithen this was the type of communication system used by the immediate ancestors of Homo sapiens in Africa, although in a form less highly evolved than among Neanderthals in Europe (Mithen, 2006).

[10] Mithen., 252-253.

[11] Ibid., 253.

[12] Ibid., 253.

[13] Ibid., 253.

[14] Ibid., 253.

[15] Ibid., 257.

[16] Ibid., 257.

[17] Ibid. 258.

[18] Ibid., 258-259.

[19] Wuketits., 128.

[20] Ibid., 128.

[21] Ibid., 128.

[22] Frans De Waal. (2006) Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 166-175.

[23] Ibid., 175.

[24] Wuketits., 118.

[25] Ibid., 119.

[26] Ibid., 119.

[27] Ibid., 198-199.

[28] Van Huysteen., 15.

Autor:

Samuel Arroyo