Language Co-evolved with the Rule of Law
Evolution of Language Sixth International Conference Rome, 12-15 April 2006
Many scholars assume a connection between the evolution of language and that of distinctively human group-level morality. Unfortunately, such thinkers frequently downplay a central implication of modern Darwinian theory, which precludes the possibility of innate psychological mechanisms evolving to benefit the group at the expense of the individual. Group level moral regulation is indeed central to sexual, social and political life in all known hunter-gatherer communities. The production of speech acts would be impossible without such regulation. The challenge, therefore, is to explain on a Darwinian basis how life could have become subject to the rule of law. Only then will we have an appropriate social framework in which to contextualize our models of how language may have evolved.
Let me begin with a self-evident point, perhaps too often taken for granted. When academics participate in conferences and debates, we find ourselves operating under the rule of law. Protocols exist. We must keep to agreed time limits, disclose our sources, accept criticism and renounce any temptation to use threats, material inducements or force. There is status competition, certainly. But status is determined on an intellectual basis by peer evaluation alone; we compete to demonstrate relevance (Sperber and Wilson 1995 [1986]; Dessalles 1998) in one anothers’ eyes.
What applies in academic life applies wherever language is used. Protocols exist. Compared with academic discourse, informal gossip may be livelier, more relaxed, less abstract and more intimately bound up with nonlinguistic modes of expression. But despite such obvious differences, the same basic principles apply. Civilized discourse (Grice 1989: 22-40; Leech 1980; Brown and Levinson 1987 [1978]) is inseparably bound up with such things as tact, mutual face-saving and respect. What I am here terming ‘the rule of law’ is never just behavioral dominance exerted by certain individuals over others. It is contractual, valid only when based on mutual consent. The relevant contracts may be formal, informal or completely taken for granted (and correspondingly invisible). But only once such understandings are in place can any of us ‘do things with words’ (Austin 1978 [1955]).
Download short (2006) version of Language co-evolved with the rule of law [PDF 188KB].
Download long (2007) version of Language co-evolved with the rule of law [PDF 224KB]