5.c) Genetic foundation and the origin of language
If until now, the study of memory presents unresolved questions, with language these questions multiply.
Nevertheless, we can implement some guidelines on the factors that take part in language, especially in those on evolutionary genetics and the origin of language.
The following can be cited from what has been set out in the book about intelligence and the previous sections on memory of the Global Cognitive Theory:
This type of intelligence operates with a degree of reduced reliability in comparison to logical math intelligence, even with the intuition mode.
It deals with the type of extra rapid responses of intelligence that we discussed when talking about the origin of language.
Regardless of the existence of short, medium, and long-term linguistic memory, linguistic memories with greater or lesser degree of reliability, and memories of subjects or special situations of a linguistic nature; we can argue that the general nature of this memory is that it does not require selecting exact words when speaking.
On the other hand, now is not the time to go any deeper into the aspect of written language, although the ideas and arguments would be similar.
One can observe that the velocity of speaking immediately reduces if we try to express ourselves with greater precision.
In short, the merging of intelligence and linguistic memory produces spectacular results in language.
In the previous section it was stated:
There is a famous philosophical trend that suggests a strong genetic component of language. The linguist, Noam Chomsky, is the most important representative of this trend known as innatism, in contrast to the trend of constructivism. A long time ago Chomsky confirmed having identified common elements in all of the human languages, which implied a genetic predisposition to language development.
As far as the origin of language, I agree with the idea of a genetic base of language but without denying the other side of the coin: not all humans have the same predisposition in quantitative terms. For, otherwise, it would be like the work of instant divine creation.
The human brain still needs years of development to acquire a good control of language and, even so, it is clear that there are vast and obvious differences in the command of language of some humans.
Even if this other aspect seems less attractive at first, the effort of looking for its beauty will surely bring enormous benefits.
Regardless of prettiness, with the theory of Natural Selection as well as with the Global Theory of Conditioned Evolution of Life (GTCEL), language should have a non-identical genetic load for all individuals.
The Global Theory of Conditional Evolution of Life clearly proposes an almost absolute genetic foundation and, consequently, the differences found in individuals are due to genetic differences.
However, if we examine the Mendelian genetic evolution with the essential Darwinist Theory we also arrive to similar results. Reasonably so, no one in the science community can deny that Darwin’s great contribution is that man comes from ape.
That is, the linguistic capacity has developed from a very primitive stage; let us say that of primates, to more developed stages. Then, if, for example, we standardize the number of words to a variation of one to a thousand, we may try to discover how this number has been able to evolve throughout history.
One by one, we will examine the following features that have had an influence and their possible effects.
Genetic derivation or accumulation
Including random mutations due to natural selection, those that produce a comparative advantage will have more descendants. That is, small random increases in the linguistic capacity will tend to establish themselves genetically.
Rate of increase due to evolutionary genetics
Despite recognizing that the rate could have varied due to physiological changes that benefitted language, it is flawless that such changes will have required quite a few generations to reach the completely human population.
Furthermore, it is unreasonable to believe that the change of one to a thousand in our standardized scale could happen in the first steps of the Homo sapiens. I would have thought the opposite. In other words, a change of ten in the last five thousand years would mean an increase of one percent while in the first forty five thousand years of the Homo sapiens would have meant a ninety-nine percent.
Therefore, due to the proportionality and the randomness, we should expect that the percentage alteration had a tendency to balance out despite the possible variations previously mentioned.
Variability of existing languages
I do not know the specific calculations for the number of words in the current languages but I imagine they vary quite a bit, and I also suppose that the very concept of a word would pose a significant problem for such calculations.
Given that language implies an obvious comparative advantage, we should also expect that it has increased to its maximum rate or permitted rate by the increment of the population of the produced variations, whatever their theoretical causes may be.
Previous arguments infer that growth will have followed an exponential pattern with greater or lesser rate at certain times.
Subsequently, the greater increases in absolute terms have been produced during the last one or two thousand years, keeping in mind that the current Homo sapiens have only been in existence during 50,000 years (in rounded figures).
It is true that the halt of Western civilization of the first five hundred years of the Christian calendar partly contradicts the previous arguments. But it must be understood such as how the Roman and Greek cultures were a very reduced genetic foundation in population and in the process of expansion, they ceased being visible during a long period of time due to reasons relating to this genetic configuration of the operations that maintained the intellectual capacities.
In summary, I would like to point out that the language genetic base is indisputable and that the relative importance attributed to it will depend on the temporal and population scale of the analysis; in the long term, it would be absolute, with either a theory of evolution or another.
In the short-term, on an individual level, it would be almost complete with the GTCEL, and with Darwin’s theory rather reduced.
Nevertheless, in my opinion, in the case of the Homo Sapiens language, the Darwinist Theory fails given that it would need a long-term that has not existed. It has only two thousand generations to produce positive mutations, establish genetics, and it for it to spread to the entire population; and only forty of them in the last thousand years.
In any case, the weakened exponential growth seems contrived; whichever theory it is expounded.
* * *