The Human Journey
The Evolution of Language

The Evolution of Language


External Symbols

Symbols exert a subtle and powerful influence on the thinking of a group’s members. Whenever a new form of communication comes to dominate a society, certain types of thought and interaction will be emphasized at the expense of others, and will influence the contemporary culture more than others.

Chavet Cave paintins
Cave paintings refer to long lost mental models (Chauvet caves).

Once speech was established, it became possible to envisage recording ideas that were external to human memory and in this way extend the range of knowledge possessed by the group.

Beginning with Art

Preliterate societies needed to express themselves in concrete ways. Art most likely served to connect them to their ancestors and the spirit worlds. It also helped to identify one community from another, establish territory and to plan and coordinate hunting.

Gobekli Tepe pillar
Gölbekli Tepe (Photo: Berthold Steinhilber/Bilderberg)

Effective communication requires that the parties share a common language, experience, and the mental models for interpreting that language. New ideas are not adopted in a vacuum: new symbols or mental models are typically based on those already established and familiar. Radically different notions are obscure and inaccessible to the culture or group.

Also, if a particular form of communication falls out of use, what we associate with it becomes lost and the culture or group no longer understands the meaning. The meanings behind the horses on the Chauvet cave walls, or the pillar humanoid forms at Göbekli Tepe are lost to us today, and we can only speculate as to their original significance.

Bridging the Gap Between Speech and External Symbols

Written language lessened our dependence on past experiences, it enabled us to represent new ideas directly rather than to remind, embellish or duplicate the spoken word. It extended the common knowledge and experience of the group farther into the future.

A counting system based on clay tokens was developed in Mesopotamia - around 8500 BCE. The first known systems of writing, such as the Sumerian cuneiform, were pictographs and counting methods used in commerce between 4000 and 3000 BCE.

From about the 9th century BCE the Phoenician adaptation of the alphabet and variants of it travelled around the Mediterranean, eventually giving rise to Greek, Anatolian and other scripts. In contrast to the more complex Cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphs, it was the first script in which one sound was represented by one symbol, hence the name “phonetic.” In this form of writing, elements, such as an “A” would have the same sound wherever they appeared, unlike hieroglyphic writing where each symbol was unique to its meaning and had to be learned by heart.

This new flexibility of representation made modern languages possible and accessible to many more people. It bridged the gap between speech and external symbols.

Unlike vocalization or speech, writing is not instinctual and not all cultures write, but where it did flourish, additional kinds of thought could be developed and expressed. Writing lends itself in particular to analytical and theoretical thinking, so it is not surprising that its advent coincided with an explosion of cultural and technological innovation. (See Mesopotamia.)

The use of a phonetic alphabet made written language more accessible to the general population, rather than restricted to an elite educated class. During the golden age of Greek city-states between 500 and 300 BC, for instance, the great flowering of culture was stimulated by public study and discussion of ideas which were made accessible by an alphabetic written language.

Ideas Precede Symbols, Symbols Generate Ideas

When a symbol or symbolic system is introduced, it must identify something that the community recognizes, agrees upon and remembers before it can become a useful communication tool. But, once it is in use it can have profound influences on the culture and generate new thoughts and new kinds of models.

0=nothing

The emergence of the numeric symbol for zero is a great example. Though humans have probably always understood the concept of “nothing” or of “having nothing,” it was not until the 5th century CE, when the explicitly expressed zero was used as a concise numeric notation in the Arabic number system, that mathematical “discoveries” and new ways of using numbers became possible.

Understanding and working with zero is the basis of our world today; without zero we would lack calculus, financial accounting, the ability to make arithmetic computations quickly, and, especially in today's connected world, computers. The story of zero is the story of an idea that has aroused the imagination of great minds across the globe.” (How was zero discovered? by nils-Bertil Wallin, YaleGlobal online).

The interplay between symbols and mental models within a group exerts a subtle and powerful influence on the thinking of its members. Whenever a new form of communication comes to dominate discourse in a society, certain types of thought and social interaction will receive focus at the expense of others. And those that are emphasized will influence the contemporary culture more than others.

Specific symbols are used for specific occasions and their power is particularly noticeable in times of perceived stress, as we saw with Winston Churchill’s victory sign. Of course, the most notorious symbol of that same period was the Swatiska and a quick review of its history can help us understand the potential power of external symbols.

The important point to note is that the mental models we associate with words and phrases influence our thinking: they can both enrich and limit our interpretations, and sometimes with disastrous consequences.

Today we are surrounded by logos, labels, titles and phrases all carefully tailored to describe the variety of activities undertaken by corporations and governments in the way they wish us to see them. When the United States government changed the name of one of its organizations from the “Department of War” to the “Department of Defense,” it was probably for the purpose of changing public perception from warlike associations (such as aggression, conflict, weapons, death, destruction and suffering) to defense-related ideals (such as home, family, justice, protection and liberty).