This is the first article in a new series titled "Evolution's Impact".
The series will spotlight "a-ha!" moments of mine. Moments when I suddenly became aware of something interesting that others don't seem to be aware of! In hindsight, you may feel that my views are common sense, but I suspect that you will find that I'm the first person you've encountered who's made the point that I make!
The series will examine specific human behaviors and attempt to determine the evolutionary reasons leading to the creation (or evolution) of that specific human behavior.
The series will examine interesting evolutionary roots of behavior. It will not focus on more obvious roots, such as the evolution of opposable thumbs in response to the need to grasp objects with one's hand!
Today's article will focus on human accents. Accents, as in the way a given language sounds different when spoken in different regions.
What are the evolutionary roots that led to accents being developed?
This is my theory:
Before cars were developed (and perhaps before other methods of transportation, such as ships, were developed), people traveled much less often than they do today (and when they did travel, not as far). This is obvious not only because of the lack of speedy transportation available at the time, but because people tended to have larger families, with many children. Having many children (and having any children at all) meant that parents felt more obligated to stay with their family in order to shelter, protect and provide for their children. In those days, you couldn't work out of town and Fedex money to your family! Also, farms were very common back then. Daily harvesting wouldn't have allowed for much traveling at all, unless it was out of season.
Because people tended not to travel as much, you ended up with many settlements of different groups of people located in multiple locations within a country.
However, travel was not impossible. One could travel by horse, for example, or walking.
Now think of the community and it's relationship with crime. I would say that a member of a community is more likely to be robbed by someone from outside their community than by another member of their community, for several reasons: 1) the shame and economic hardship it could bring on the criminal and his family; after all, in relatively small communities there are stronger social links. 2) People often associate with their in-group more than they do an out-group. They have incentives to help other members of their community. 3) It's easier to commit a crime against a total stranger rather than someone whom you are more likely to know
Also, consider that in those days, committing violence with the aim to steal resources may have been considered more acceptable, and been more common, than it is today. Look at how common wars were back then. You also had colonialism and slavery.
How could people living in larger communities be sure that the people they meet are indeed members of their community and not outsiders that may rob or kill them? After all, people living in different communities often look very similar to each other!
The answer is simple: people living in different regions would develop speech accents! People from different communities were immediately able to spot the outsiders.
I also argue that people's faces have evolved over time in such a manner to allow differentiation between members of different communities. I've noticed that when I compare members of the same race who live in different cities, there are subtle facial differences to be found, even between residents of neighboring cities. My ability to predict a stranger's city of birth (or at least narrow down the choices) has made more than one person feel uncomfortable with me!
But back to accents.
If accents developed according to an evolutionary advantage of identifying the region that someone was born in, you would think that, in order to be most effective, accents would develop for 100% of the people born in a given region, correct? Well, that seems to be the case, as far as I know! I don't know of any cases whereby a newborn developed an accent that didn't match the prevailing accent in their region.
Now think about this: you often hear about how slow evolution can progress. There are plenty of examples of children who possess traits that aren't visibly evident in their parents. Children have eyes that are colored different than their parents' eyes. Tall children are often born to two short parents (this wouldn't be the most common scenario, but it occurs often enough that you can recount such instances). Smart children are born to two parents of average intelligence. The list goes on and on.
Although genes do pass down from parents to children, it would seem that, for some reason, the visible traits exhibited by the parents don't always pass down to their children.
But for some reason, as far as I know, a child always has the accent that their parent does! (Assuming, of course, that they were both born in the same region). (There is just one possible exception that I'm aware of, some type of disorder that results in people switching accents in adulthood, if I remember correctly, and that wouldn't even be considered an exception if it occurs in adulthood and not before speech begins).
This is strongly suggestive of the following: evolution considered an accent to be extremely important; so important that every single person in a region develops that trait!
And how about the fact that it takes a long time for people to lose their accent once they move to a new region? It often takes years for people's accent to be lost (or almost completely diminished!)
At the same time, one that has resided in a new community for a lengthy period of time is now more likely to be loyal to their new community (this is evidenced by the fact that they have resided there for so long!) Evolution has provided a way for these people to be recognized as in-group members; their accent diminishes, or is completely eliminated. And for the people that have only a trace of their accent audible, that's an evolutionary sign too: a sign that someone was once a member of another community, but has been a member of the current community for a very long period of time.
I'd be interested in learning how far back in history one can find records that attest to the existence of accents. Readers, please let me know!
This must surely rate as the most bizarre theory I've ever read.
ReplyDeleteSurely it's far easier to account for accents by immigration? As an example; in the UK the Liverpuddlian accent stands out. It has a twang to it that's unlike other UK accents. However, when you compare it to an Irish accent, particularly when speaking Gaelic, you notice similarities. Unsurprisingly, Liverpool has traditionally seen a significant amount of immigration from Ireland, whose inhabitants spoke Gaelic.
This can be seen happening in London now. The traditional cockney accent is being fused with a Bangladeshi meets Jamaican accent. Immigration from those areas means children are being influenced by a whole range of languages and accents.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteit's YOUR actions that are bizarre. You claim my theory is bizarre, but you don't point out where I'm illogical.
Even the theory that you DO provide is weak.
First, I never claimed that immigration couldn't have an impact, but certainly it would have a weak impact, if not neligible.
More importantly, my article was discussing the period of time BEFORE immigration was common (before cars and ships were invented). Hence, it was extremely unlikely for immigration to have a significant impact. Did you read me article at all?
The main flaw with the immigration argument is this: For immigration to influence accents, there has to be an immigrant that has a accent different from the place he's immigrating to.
But according to your argument, one GETS the accent from immigrants. This theory CANNOT account for how the immigrant himself got the accent in the first place! After all, if you go back far enough, you will find regions that had accents but NOT immigrants. So there was a point in EVERY society that people developed spontaneously, somehow, and there was NO immigration.
Either 1) people developed spontaneously (through evolution), which would mean that they developed the accidents naturally, no immigration. If people evolved in one spot, then moved around, immigration couldn't have resulted in the different accents appearing in different regions because there was only one accent to begin with. They would have have to developed it in another manner, perhaps as I theorized.
The alternative is that people evolved and appeared in different areas, and each developed accents according to evolution (as I theorize).
Therefore, I've just shown that your immigration theory is actually IMPOSSIBLE to be correct.
But even I hadn't just disproven your argument, I would've said this: How did those people ORIGINALLY get the accents? Or, using your terminology, how did the immigrant bringing the accent get it himself in his homeland?
Regardless, it's not plausible that immigration was a significant cause at all, because immigration was much rarer back then, and because I've never EVER seen a child of immigrants be born in a region and hear them speak with an accent from the parents' homeland. NEVER.
You write:
"Immigration from those areas means children are being influenced by a whole range of languages and accents. "
Huh? You're claiming that children's accents are developing according to the accent of their parents, not the accent that's spoken in their new country? Have you EVER seen an example of a child living in a new country yet adopting the accent from their parents' homeland?
To summarize, it's impossible for your theory to be correct, because 1) either people developed spontaneously in different regions with different accents (if each region didn't develop different accents, then you wouldn't see different accents today, and also it would've been impossible for immigrants to spread accents since there weren't any!), or 2)People developed in one region and then spread out. In this case, immigration couldn't explain the spread of accent because there would've been only one accent in the first region, to begin with (or, if there were multiple accents in the first region of humanity, that also defeats your argument, since the multiple accents appeared spontaneously, not through immigration)
But my point was that diversity of language precedes diversity of accent (or at least goes hand in hand with it). Accents would start to diverge with language. Assume that there is a single community which then becomes geographically diverse. The shared language they speak will, with time and isolation, develop into dialects and, eventually, new languages. This will occur naturally.
ReplyDeleteIf I may paraphrase your original article, it seems that when you're talking about evolution, you're referring specifically to natural selection, and stating that the possession of an accent will confer some sort of advantage on individuals. Clearly, I understand the genetic advantage of those behaviours associated with community. To some extent, this supports your theory, as it explains why members of a social group would speak similarly - i.e. to emphasize a sense of belonging. However, I believe you extend this too far by using it to explain difference between groups as well as similarity within groups.
I feel that you are correct to think evolution does contribute to the creation of accents - but not in the way you think. My point earlier about migration shows how second generation immigrants (i.e. who are the first generation of native language speakers) impact on the accent within a region. They don't simply adopt the local accent but can also influence it, as native children go some way to adopt their accents. Evolution therefore doesn't bring about change, but rather it brings about similarity.
Oh, you also say "Huh? You're claiming that children's accents are developing according to the accent of their parents, not the accent that's spoken in their new country? Have you EVER seen an example of a child living in a new country yet adopting the accent from their parents' homeland?"
In response to that - not a pure accent, but certainly a hybrid; in fact I mentioned cases where it's currently being observed (i.e. the change in accents in London). I'm sure everyone has examples, however. At my school there were quite a few children of Pakistani origin. Their parents would be Arabic speakers, and so would speak that language at home. It was noticeable that many of the children had at least tinges of their parents' accent.
You write:
ReplyDelete"But my point was that diversity of language precedes diversity of accent (or at least goes hand in hand with it). Accents would start to diverge with language. Assume that there is a single community which then becomes geographically diverse. The shared language they speak will, with time and isolation, develop into dialects and, eventually, new languages. This will occur naturally."
You didn't offer much evidence of this, just some UK cases. No logic to explain how immigration might contrast or accompany evolutionary factors.
Even if the UK cases you offer are true, are there other cases in which immigration did not affect accent? I can cite many cases where a child born to immigrants with heavy accents don't develop an unusual accent themself.
Therefore, your argument has a lot of explaining to do.
Also, my article refers mainly to children born in a region, and has little to do with accents that may change as an adult (I only wrote a little about that).
Your first post is unclear as to whether you're referring to children, adults or both.
Your original claim, that it's easier to account for accents through immigration and not evolution, is undisputably false, based on the info provided. My explanation shows that accents developed likely 100% of the time (except perhaps for disorders), which is heavily suggestive of evolutionary factors! Your explanation provides examples which, if true, do NOT occur 100% of the time.
Also, even if your theory is correct, it can COEXIST with my theory as well, a theory that is supported by quite a bit of logic.
As such, and most importantly, you failed to explain your original claim that my theory was "bizarre".
You continue:
"To some extent, this supports your theory, as it explains why members of a social group would speak similarly - i.e. to emphasize a sense of belonging. However, I believe you extend this too far by using it to explain difference between groups as well as similarity within groups."
I never claimed that accents were created as a means to directly enhance community belonging, I claimed that they were perhaps created as a means to IDENTIFY community outsiders. That's it. I didn't mention anything else about accents being related to similarities within and differences between groups. I simply said an outsider may be more likely than an insider to attack someone. That greater likelihood is not related to their accent but related to other factors, such as the costs of attacking someone in your own community.
When you refer to school examples...as I said, it's possible immigration might be affecting things in addition to evolution, but it's certainly not as strong an argument as mine, based on the logic provided.
Remember, children at school could have been born in a foreign country and moved to London when 1-3 yrs old. Therefore they already developed the foreign accent. That's why I imply that research would be needed to figure out any effects from immigration!
I would be interested in seeing any such research, because like I said, there are many examples I can think of where children born here, with parents with strong accents, don't seem to develop a noticeably different accent than the people here. Therefore, I think it should be confirmed that it is indeed occurring at birth, and if so, why in some cases and not others.