Languages are for obfuscation

[Blind groper]

Article in the 8 December issue of New Scientist,page 39, titled "War of Words".

The article describes the variability of human languages and points out some interesting things, and proposes a hypothesis. The interesting point is that language variability increases closer to the equator, and is reduced towards the poles. For example : the island of Papua New Guinea, which is very close to the equator, but is not much bigger than California, has 1,000 separate languages. (The total for the whole world is about 7,000). The explanation for this is that warmer places have more food available, and so social groups do not travel as much. In Arctic areas, by contrast, each family or tribe has to cover a very big territory to obtain food.

Now, it would appear that fewer languages, and better communication across groups, would be an advantage. Why then, do new languages crop up?

The hypothesis here is that languages are separated in order to prevent communication. In this way, separate social groups, like tribes or nations, can have a specific language which is a badge of membership in that group, and which permits communication within the social group, while excluding outsiders. So, the development of different languages, and the communications problems that arise, are in fact a social tool.

We can see this on a smaller scale with specific social groups inside our own societies. How many groups have their own jargon and slang, which is poorly, if at all, understood by outsiders?

It is not just distinct languages, of course. It is dialects, slangs, accents.
However, the driving force behind this splitting seems now to be reversed. We now have the much spoken of 'global village' and people communicate across continents (like this post). As a result, suddenly a common language is becoming necessary. The author of the article thinks English is the most likely new common language.

[Audley Strange]

Well that or Mandarin or piginglitextese

[Jason]

Well no shit. I didn't need to get a grant to tell you that (referring the the summation of the article in its entirety).

[pErvinalia]

It's like butchers, innit.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It's turd tills all the way down.

[Blind groper]

Another thought. From me this time, not a journal.

Modern civilisation began in Europe. Is it possible that an important driver of the progress that created the Renaissance, and consequently science, technology, and the modern era, may have been the easier communication? At the time, Latin was a common language for educated people, and Europe had only about five dominant languages. Maybe the fact that people could talk to each other permitted real progress?

China also has relatively few languages, and was the other main centre of civilisation during medieval times.

The myriad of tongues might be the main reason civilisation did not come into being in a hotter part of the world?

[cronus]

Cannibalism, common to the late stone age and before, may have survived even later closer to the equator and that along with family blood feuds could have fueled language diversification.