Does intelligence necessarily lead to an abstract language?
Pretty much what it says in the question title.
Suppose a non-human, social species of Earth animal found itself on an evolutionary path that favored increased intelligence of a kind not completely dissimilar from that of humans.
These creatures, from the beginning, are able to plan ahead and at least to some degree anticipate the consequences of their actions. (It is not beyond them to reason like "If I do X, then do Y, then Z happens, which is good".)
Would such evolutionary pressure necessarily also lead to said species developing an abstract language of a similar kind as humans have in abundance?
For the purposes of this question, let's ignore what this species' language would be like; such a language, if it develops, could be based on any method of communication including vocalizations (sound), body language, or scent (or even telepathy or magic for all we care here). "Language" here pretty much just means "a method of communication between individuals".
Let's also ignore how humans would react to such a species and its evolution in such a direction. (In fact, if that makes you feel better, you can suppose that humans aren't around in this world.)
Seeking well-reasoned answers describing why an abstract language would or would not necessarily follow from a species achieving or evolving toward intelligence. Bonus points for answers that discuss how such a language might also evolve over time as the species evolves. Bonus points also for specific citations, but citations are not a substitute for answers being well-reasoned in their own right.
1 answer
Human language evolved for the interaction between humans. That may sound like a trivial fact, but it isn't: If there had not been social interaction between humans, humans would not have evolved language.
Therefore the question basically reduces to: Does a species need to be social in order to develop an intelligence of similar levels as humans? Of course, given that we have very little experimental basis (as far as we know, th4e number if species with human-level intelligence on earth is, well, quite limited), it's hard to say for sure, but I would risk to say: Yes.
Why? Because natural interactions are relatively simple, including the interaction with possible prey if that prey is itself not that intelligent. Human intelligence certainly did not evolve in order to hunt; the main hunting strategy of the early humans was to outrun the prey (which is why humans are the best species when it comes to extended runs; other animals may run faster on short distances, but none would beat us at a marathon). A bit of intelligence is, of course, useful in hunting, but I doubt too much would be needed.
It is IMHO exactly social interactions that drove the intelligence; that is the place where you have to be able to think several levels deep, exactly because the other one does, too. If you are facing a non-intelligent being, all you need to know is: What will be the reaction. A bit of intelligence is sufficient for that. But to interact with your just-as-intelligent peers, it is important to be able to think one step further: "What does he think about me?" Also social interaction includes coordination as well as passing on knowledge. Both also profit from higher intelligence, as you need to understand the motives and plans of the other person in order to either coordinate with or learn from that person.
Note that coordination and teaching are also the main two areas where in language is useful, therefore I conclude the evolutionary pressure of developing intelligence and of developing language come together.
Also note that the structures needed for both have a very high overlap, as evidenced by the fact that a lot of our inner thoughts are a sort of inner monologue; indeed Ludwig Wittgenstein famously declared that the limits of language are also the limits of thought.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads