Darwin on Language

Darwin as dandy. That is some vest he is wearing.

Darwin’s letters are being posted on the Internet (here). The first 5000 are now available, with more to come. and I thought I would see what he had to say about speech and its origins. It makes for some agreeable browsing. From this blog’s perspective the most interesting issue discussed is the relationship between the evolution of species and the evolution of language. The analogy is intriguing and suggestive, but elusive.

The primary similarity is that languages share a common ancestry, having become distinct languages over time. The relation between Latin and its children (French, Italian, Spanish, etc.) had been known for centuries, and the Germanic languages were similarly linked. More recently, a relationship between Sanskrit and Latin had been recognized, linking many languages into a common, Indo-European, family. The implications of the idea that languages share a common ancestry is discussed in Darwin’s first letter on the subject of language evolution, written to his sister, Caroline, shortly before he set off on his voyage around the world.

You tell me you do not see what is new in Sir J. Herschell's idea about the chronology of the old Testament being wrong.— I have used the word Chronology in dubious manner, it is not to the days of Creation which he refers, but to the lapse of years since the first man made his wonderful appearance on this world— As far as I know everyone has yet thought that the six thousand odd years has been the right period but Sir J. thinks that a far greater number must have passed since the Chinese, the [space left in copy], the Caucasian languages separated from one stock. [To Caroline Darwin; Feb 27, 1837]

It is certainly astonishing to see that Darwin’s first appreciation of the earth’s great age came, not from geology, but from the linguistic speculation that Chinese and English languages share a common ancestry. Thus, for Darwin, before he had a picture of biological species descending from a shared ancestor, he was already familiar with the idea of descent through modification in languages.

He was also interested in the relationship between geology and language, and two of his letters refer to a remark made to him by Sir. John Herschel while sailing around the world on the Beagle. The incident must have stuck in his mind as he was still citing it in 1860, although he makes no mention of it in his account of the voyage, when he heard the remark:

Your metaphor of the pebbles of preexisting languages, reminds me that I heard Sir J. Herschel at the Cape say, how he wished someone wd treat languages, as you had Geology, & study the existing causes of change & apply the deductions to old languages. [To Charles Lyell; March 8, 1850]

I remember years ago at the C. of Good Hope; Sir J. Herschel saying to me—I wish some one would treat language as Lyell has treated Geology [To J.M. Rodwell; Nov. 5, 1860]

Darwin’s brother-in-law, Hensleigh Wedgewood, took up the challenge and wrote a book about the origins of speech (available online here). It sought to reproduce Lyell’s geological method by interpreting the history of language in terms of forces still at work today in shaping language. However, Lyell’s book discusses geological change and did not worry about the origins of the earth itself. Darwin’s letters are full of despairing references to his own poor knowledge of other languages, but he does appear to have been sympathetic to his brother-in-law’s efforts.

Once Darwin’s theory of evolution via natural selection became public, the relationship between biological and linguistic evolution caught the attention of a number of thinkers. The first to react appear to have been the enemies of evolutionary theory, the most prominent of whom was Louis Agassiz, a Swiss naturalist and discoverer of the ice age, who lived in Boston when Darwin’s book was published. Agassiz did not even believe in separate varieties of a single species, believing each to have been created separately. He surprised Darwin by sticking so firmly to his guns that he rejected the idea of linguistic evolution too:

Darwin thought it was a great joke and mentioned this business in several letters.

``I wish I had time to write you an account of the very absurd lengths to which [Francis?] Bowen & [Louis] Agassiz—each in their own way—are going. The first denying all heredity (all transmission except specific) whatever. The second coming near to deny that we are genetically descended from our great-great-grandfather; & insisting that evidently affiliated languages e.g. Latin Greek Sanscrit owe none of their similarities to a community of origin,—are all autochtonal [i.e., born in the region where they are found]. Agassiz (foolish man) admits that the derivation of languages & that of Species or forms stand on the same foundation, & that he must allow the latter if he allows the former,—which I tell him is perfectly logical.'' [To C. Lyell; Feb 2, 1861]

You have amused me much by your account of Agassiz's denying the community of descent of allied languages, [To Asa Gray; Feb 17, 1862]

A primary difference between linguistic and biological evolution was not at all clear in Darwin’s day. Nothing was known in the 19th century about genetics, and nobody dreamt of today’s understanding that evolution proceeds through changes in the makeup and distribution of DNA over the generations. No such material basis for linguistic evolution has been found, leaving us with no clear idea of what is being selected, or how selection works. For example, the sounds of speech change over time. It seems pretty much like drift—i.e., change without selection—and yet something more must be at work because the sound system does not collapse so that we all just say uh uh uh. Syntax also undergoes great changes without collapsing into incoherence. Changes in word meanings are also striking because despite the constant confusing of words, blurring of distinctions, and forgetting of old words, speech remains an apt response to circumstances. The mechanisms that preserve linguistic order are in no way understood. Nor, in comparison to the very exact understanding of DNA that microbiologists enjoy, do we have any real understanding of exactly what that surviving order is.

Darwin appreciated that languages and species evolve in different ways and was somewhat suspicious of the analogy. An exchange with his American supporter (mostly), Asa Gray, shows the hesitancy to try to work with the analogy, and also gets to the subject of this blog, speech origins. Gray wrote to Darwin

I have just been reading Max Müller’s Lectures on the Science of Language, with much interest. But perhaps what has interested me most is, after all, his perfect appreciation and happy use of Natural Selection, and the very complete analogy between diversification of species and diversification of language. I can hardly think of any publication which in England could be more useful to your cause than this volume is, or should be. I see also with what great effect you may use it in our occasional discussion about design,—indeed I hardly see how to avoid conclusion adverse to special design.—tho' I think I see indications of a way out. Depend on it, Max Müller will be of real service to you. [From Asa Gray, Oct. 4, 1862]

Darwin replied:

When your note of Oct 4th & 13th, (chiefly about Max Müller) arrived I was nearly at the end of the same book & had intended recommending you to read it! I quite agree that it is extremely interesting, but the latter part about first origin of language much the least satisfactory. It is a marvellous problem. I have heard, whether truly or not I do not know, but the book has rather given me the same impression, that he is dreadfully afraid of not being thought strictly orthodox. He even hints at truth of Tower of Babel! I thus accounted for covert sneers at me, which he seems to get the better of towards the close of the book.— I cannot quite see how it will forward ``my cause'' as you call it; but I can see how anyone with literary talent (I do not feel up to it) could make great use of the subject, in illustration. What pretty metaphors you would make from it! I wish some one would keep a lot of the most noisy monkeys, half free, & study their means of communication! [To Asa Gray, Nov. 6, 1862]

Everybody is sure to love Darwin’s wish to study “a lot of the most noisy monkeys” and I’m also grateful for his sound-bite on the origins of speech, “A marvellous problem.” I’m going to use that, for sure, although probably Americanized to one l.

The author under discussion here, Max Müller, was a great German scholar of languages, religion, and mythology. His work on language origins is best remembered today for his rhetorical derision of rival theories as the bow-wow theory etc. He was not in the Lyell/Wedgewood camp of looking for causes and changes in the phenomena found today. Instead, he argued that people originally had instincts to put ideas into sounds and once they had succeeded in doing so the instincts atrophied somewhat and were replaced by the modern system of learning and transmitting existing languages.

Gray offered a cryptic explanation of how he thought Müller could help Darwin’s cause:

About Max Müller. Surely you can't wonder that the attempt to account for the ``first origin of language'' or of anything else, should be the ``least satisfactory''. The use that I fancied could be made of Max Muller's book,—or rather of history of language—is something more than illustration, but only a little more,—i.e. you may point to analogies of development & diversification of language—of no value at all in evidence in support of your theory, but good & pertinent as rebutting objections, urged against it. [From Asa Gray, Nov. 24, 1862]

This notion of a relationship between the two evolutions was not about to go away. In early 1863 Charles Lyell published a book on Antiquity of Man that established that humans had been around much longer than the Bible says. In the book he also gave up a long quarrel with Louis Agassiz and agreed that in recent times (by geological standards) there had been a great ice age. (This new position is what Darwin refers to when he mentions the book’s material about glaciers.) Late in the book Lyell also addressed the continuing tangle of analogies between biological, geological, and linguistic change.

Lyell was pleased, when I told him lately that you thought that language might be used as excellent illustration of derivation of species; you will see that he has admirable chapter on this [in Antiquity of Man]. [To Asa Gray; Feb. 23, 1863]

I have read Lyell's book. The whole certainly struck me as a compilation; but of the highest class, for where possible the facts have been verified on the spot, making it almost an original work. The Glacial chapters seem to me the best, & in parts magnificent. I could hardly judge about Man, as all the gloss of novelty was completely worn off. But certainly the aggregation of the evidence produced a very striking effect on my mind. The Chapter comparing language & changes of species seems most ingenious & interesting. He has showed great skill in picking out salient points in the argument for change of species; but I am deeply disappointed (I do not mean personally) to find that his timidity prevents him giving any judgment. [To Joseph Hooker; Feb. 24, 1863]

Gray, however, was not so impressed.

The Chapter on language makes the points I supposed would be made, or some of them, but only dips in;—leaving more to be said. But this is rather ticklish ground,—for, if we are not careful here, you would get the better of us in this field quoad designs. [From Asa Gray; April 20, 1863]

Darwin loved that last, cryptic remark about designs. Gray believed in evolution, but did also believe that humans had been specially designed. I take his point to be that language evolves without being designed so “we” [supporters of design] had better be careful lest “you” [Darwin] win the argument about design. Darwin spread the news of this remark and elaborated on it, making it sound more pointed than it originally appeared:

That is a clever remark in Gray's letter about origin of language telling against each trifling variation being designed; Lyell shirked this point, which I urged him to grapple with. I do not believe there are above half-a-dozen real downright believers in modification of Species in all England: certainly not more, who dare speak out. [To Hooker; May 9, 1863]

How clever & original & candid your remark about Language & Design. [To Gray; May 11, 1863]

Comments

[Nadiah]

Thanks for posting the link to Darwin's letters. I'm supposed to do a presentation of Darwin on language for my linguistics class. You're article helped :) Thanks