The origins of language (1)

Oops! Another unintended hiatus! Now that I have changed to Monday as my thinking/blogging day it is under peril of long weekends and other distractions. For the last two weeks I’ve been playing tour guide to my parents-in-law-to-be who were visiting from The Netherlands. The weather was less than spectacular but thankfully they still had a wonderful time seeing the mountains, the coast, some native birds and plants (including lots of flowers, which are all out at this time of year), and most of all being part of engagement celebrations.

In other news I’ve been doing some reading about the development of language. A few years ago some colleagues in linguistics put together a very thought-provoking book about the development of language (in both humans generally and in individuals) from a functional perspective (i.e. a perspective in which language is used to make meanings in particular functions). So far I’ve read the first two chapters – an introduction by the editors, Annabelle Lukin (one of my PhD supervisors) and Geoff Williams, and a chapter by Michael Halliday, who is considered the father (grandfather?) of functional linguistics.

On the first page, the editors put forward the claim that “language has evolved under the pressure to ‘mean’” (Lukin & Williams, 2004:1). I’d like to explore this idea of ‘pressure’ a little. ‘Pressure’ in other contexts is used to refer to a demanding situation or burdensome condition that means the person or phenomenon in that situation or condition must change or act in a particular way or under particular constraints. We can usually recognise where the pressure comes from – our boss, a client, our parents, a heavy backpack, too much bodyweight, water building up behind a blockage in the plumbing, etc.

In this case, the use of the noun ‘pressure’ obscures the fact that something must cause or create the pressure, and also doesn’t make clear what the pressure is actually exerted on (humans? Or language? Or the process of development?). According to the authors, the nature of the pressure seems to be that it requires language/humans to make meaning, but the origin of the pressure is not identified. Who or what puts this pressure on the development of humans/language? Why must humans ‘mean’? To be able to answer these questions without discomfort, one must hold the belief that humans (at the very least) are here by design, not by accident, and that there is a purpose to our existence. From what I have learned by talking and listening to colleagues and reading around, these beliefs are not widely held among linguists.

Being a follower of Jesus and a believer in a Creator God, Yahweh, allows me to answer the questions about where the pressure ‘to mean’ comes from, and why it is necessary for humans to mean. As I wrote a few months ago in this blog, I think humans’ capacity for, and use of, language reflects God’s character as a creative, communicative, personal God. The pressure ‘to mean’ comes from God, who made us in his image and designed us for relationship with himself and with other humans. The reason humans need language, need to be ‘meaners’, is for relationships, and in particular the relationship with God who communicates with us through meaning. As the apostle Paul says to the Romans, ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved' (Romans 10:13). Reconciliation with God requires repentance and faith. But repentance requires a conscience (the recognition of having done wrong), and ‘faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ’ (Romans 10:17). In order to be reconciled to God we must be able to hear and understand his Word, and then respond to it by turning away from sin and seeking forgiveness which is granted because of Jesus.

For me, this also explains why animals are not ‘meaners’ with language in the same way as humans. Sure, animals can make some meanings, and have even been shown to be able to communicate with humans using human language (e.g. the bonobo apes at the GreatApe Trust of Iowa; see Susan Savage-Rumbaugh’s TED presentation). But they were not created in God’s image, and they do not need to be saved the way humans do because animals do not (as far as we know) have a moral conscience. We learn from God’s word in the book of Hebrews (2:17) that it was because humans needed reconciliation with God that he sent His Son as a human being, Jesus, to die on a cross and be raised again from the dead. There wasn’t also another sacrifice, fully God and fully bonobo (or bull, or beetle) that had to be offered up at the same time to reconcile all the animals to God. It is only humans, who have a moral conscience, and who have the ability to mean for relationship with others and with God, who need to be reconciled to God.

References:

Williams, G. & Lukin, A. (Eds). (2004). The Development of Language: Functional Perspectives on Species and Individuals. London & New York: Continuum.