Evolution's Impact: Origin of Accents

1/12/2011

This is the first article in a new series titled "Evolution's Impact".

The series will spotlight "a-ha!" moments of mine. Moments when I suddenly became aware of something interesting that others don't seem to be aware of! In hindsight, you may feel that my views are common sense, but I suspect that you will find that I'm the first person you've encountered who's made the point that I make!

The series will examine specific human behaviors and attempt to determine the evolutionary reasons leading to the creation (or evolution) of that specific human behavior.

The series will examine interesting evolutionary roots of behavior. It will not focus on more obvious roots, such as the evolution of opposable thumbs in response to the need to grasp objects with one's hand.

Today's article will focus on human accents. Accents, as in the way a given language sounds different when spoken in different regions.

What are the evolutionary roots that led to accents being developed?

This is my theory:

Before cars were developed (and perhaps before other methods of transportation, such as ships, were developed), people traveled much less often than they do today (and when they did travel, not as far). This is obvious not only because of the lack of speedy transportation available at the time, but because people tended to have larger families, with many children. Having many children (and having any children at all) meant that parents felt more obligated to stay with their family in order to shelter, protect and provide for their children. In those days, you couldn't work out of town and Fedex money to your family! Also, farms were very common back then. Daily harvesting wouldn't have allowed for much traveling at all, unless it was out of season.

Because people tended not to travel as much, you ended up with many settlements of different groups of people located in multiple locations within a country.

However, travel was not impossible. One could travel by horse, for example, or walking.

Now think of the community and it's relationship with crime. I would say that a member of a community is more likely to be robbed by someone from outside their community than by another member of their community, for several reasons: 1) the shame and economic hardship it could bring on the criminal and his family; after all, in relatively small communities there are stronger social links. 2) People often associate with their in-group more than they do an out-group. They have incentives to help other members of their community. 3) It's easier to commit a crime against a total stranger rather than someone whom you are more likely to know

Also, consider that in those days, committing violence with the aim to steal resources may have been considered more acceptable, and been more common, than it is today. Look at how common wars were back then. You also had colonialism and slavery.

How could people living in larger communities be sure that the people they meet are indeed members of their community and not outsiders that may rob or kill them? After all, people living in different communities often look very similar to each other!

The answer is simple: people living in different regions would develop speech accents! People from different communities were immediately able to spot the outsiders.

I also argue that people's faces have evolved over time in such a manner to allow differentiation between members of different communities. I've noticed that when I compare members of the same race who live in different cities, there are subtle facial differences to be found, even between residents of neighboring cities. My ability to predict a stranger's city of birth (or at least narrow down the choices) has made more than one person feel uncomfortable with me!

But back to accents.

If accents developed according to an evolutionary need to identify the region that someone was born in, you would think that, in order to be most effective, accents would develop for 100% of the people born in a given region, correct? Well, that seems to be the case, as far as I know! I don't know of any cases whereby a newborn developed an accent that didn't match the prevailing accent in their region.

Now think about this: you often hear about how slow evolution can progress. There are plenty of examples of children who possess traits that aren't visibly evident in their parents. Children have eyes that are colored different than their parents' eyes. Tall children are often born to two short parents (this wouldn't be the most common scenario, but it occurs often enough that you can recount such instances). Smart children are born to two parents of average intelligence. The list goes on and on.

Although genes do pass down from parents to children, it would seem that, for some reason, the visible traits exhibited by the parents don't always pass down to their children.

But for some reason, a child always has the accent that their parent does! (Assuming, of course, that they were both born in the same region).

This is strongly suggestive of the following: evolution considered an accent to be extremely important; so important that every single person in a region develops that trait!

And how about the fact that it takes a long time for people to lose their accent once they move to a new region? It often takes years for people to lose their accent.beneficial for accents to take a long time to diminish!

At the same time, one that has resided in a new community for a lengthy period of time is now more likely to be loyal to their new community (this is evidenced by the fact that they have resided there for so long!) Evolution has provided a way for these people to be recognized; their accent diminishes, or is completely eliminated. And for the people that have only a trace of their accent audible, that's an evolutionary sign too: a sign that someone was once a member of another community, but has been a member of the current community for a very long period of time.

I'd be interested in learning how far back in history one can find records that attest to the existence of accents. Readers, please let me know!

14 Comments

Anonymous

1/13/2011 11:25:26 am

This must surely rate as the most bizarre theory I've ever read.

Surely it's far easier to account for accents by immigration? As an example; in the UK the Liverpuddlian accent stands out. It has a twang to it that's unlike other UK accents. However, when you compare it to an Irish accent, particularly when speaking Gaelic, you notice similarities. Unsurprisingly, Liverpool has traditionally seen a significant amount of immigration from Ireland, whose inhabitants spoke Gaelic.

This can be seen happening in London now. The traditional cockney accent is being fused with a Bangladeshi meets Jamaican accent. Immigration from those areas means children are being influenced by a whole range of languages and accents.

NoSuchThingAsAnOpinion link

1/13/2011 11:25:39 am

Anonymous,

it's YOUR actions that are bizarre. You claim my theory is bizarre, but you don't point out where I'm illogical.

Even the theory that you DO provide is weak.

First, I never claimed that immigration couldn't have an impact, but certainly it would have a weak impact, if not neligible.

More importantly, my article was discussing the period of time BEFORE immigration was common (before cars and ships were invented). Hence, it was extremely unlikely for immigration to have a significant impact. Did you read me article at all?

The main flaw with the immigration argument is this: For immigration to influence accents, there has to be an immigrant that has a accent different from the place he's immigrating to.

But according to your argument, one GETS the accent from immigrants. This theory CANNOT account for how the immigrant himself got the accent in the first place! After all, if you go back far enough, you will find regions that had accents but NOT immigrants. So there was a point in EVERY society that people developed spontaneously, somehow, and there was NO immigration.

Either 1) people developed spontaneously (through evolution), which would mean that they developed the accidents naturally, no immigration. If people evolved in one spot, then moved around, immigration couldn't have resulted in the different accents appearing in different regions because there was only one accent to begin with. They would have have to developed it in another manner, perhaps as I theorized.

The alternative is that people evolved and appeared in different areas, and each developed accents according to evolution (as I theorize).

Therefore, I've just shown that your immigration theory is actually IMPOSSIBLE to be correct.

But even I hadn't just disproven your argument, I would've said this: How did those people ORIGINALLY get the accents? Or, using your terminology, how did the immigrant bringing the accent get it himself in his homeland?

Regardless, it's not plausible that immigration was a significant cause at all, because immigration was much rarer back then, and because I've never EVER seen a child of immigrants be born in a region and hear them speak with an accent from the parents' homeland. NEVER.

You write:

"Immigration from those areas means children are being influenced by a whole range of languages and accents. "

Huh? You're claiming that children's accents are developing according to the accent of their parents, not the accent that's spoken in their new country? Have you EVER seen an example of a child living in a new country yet adopting the accent from their parents' homeland?

To summarize, it's impossible for your theory to be correct, because 1) either people developed spontaneously in different regions with different accents (if each region didn't develop different accents, then you wouldn't see different accents today, and also it would've been impossible for immigrants to spread accents since there weren't any!), or 2)People developed in one region and then spread out. In this case, immigration couldn't explain the spread of accent because there would've been only one accent in the first region, to begin with (or, if there were multiple accents in the first region of humanity, that also defeats your argument, since the multiple accents appeared spontaneously, not through immigration)

Anonymous

1/24/2011 06:34:45 am

But my point was that diversity of language precedes diversity of accent (or at least goes hand in hand with it). Accents would start to diverge with language. Assume that there is a single community which then becomes geographically diverse. The shared language they speak will, with time and isolation, develop into dialects and, eventually, new languages. This will occur naturally.

If I may paraphrase your original article, it seems that when you're talking about evolution, you're referring specifically to natural selection, and stating that the possession of an accent will confer some sort of advantage on individuals. Clearly, I understand the genetic advantage of those behaviours associated with community. To some extent, this supports your theory, as it explains why members of a social group would speak similarly - i.e. to emphasize a sense of belonging. However, I believe you extend this too far by using it to explain difference between groups as well as similarity within groups.

I feel that you are correct to think evolution does contribute to the creation of accents - but not in the way you think. My point earlier about migration shows how second generation immigrants (i.e. who are the first generation of native language speakers) impact on the accent within a region. They don't simply adopt the local accent but can also influence it, as native children go some way to adopt their accents. Evolution therefore doesn't bring about change, but rather it brings about similarity.

Oh, you also say "Huh? You're claiming that children's accents are developing according to the accent of their parents, not the accent that's spoken in their new country? Have you EVER seen an example of a child living in a new country yet adopting the accent from their parents' homeland?"

In response to that - not a pure accent, but certainly a hybrid; in fact I mentioned cases where it's currently being observed (i.e. the change in accents in London). I'm sure everyone has examples, however. At my school there were quite a few children of Pakistani origin. Their parents would be Arabic speakers, and so would speak that language at home. It was noticeable that many of the children had at least tinges of their parents' accent.

NoSuchThingAsAnOpinion link

1/24/2011 06:39:31 am

You write:

"But my point was that diversity of language precedes diversity of accent (or at least goes hand in hand with it). Accents would start to diverge with language. Assume that there is a single community which then becomes geographically diverse. The shared language they speak will, with time and isolation, develop into dialects and, eventually, new languages. This will occur naturally."

You didn't offer much evidence of this, just some UK cases. No logic to explain how and why immigration might be a cause of accents, or why immigration might contrast or accompany evolutionary factors.

Even if the UK cases you offer are true, are there other cases in which immigration did not affect accent? I can cite many cases where a child born to immigrants with heavy accents don't seem to develop an unusual accent themself.

Therefore, your argument has a lot of explaining to do.

Also, my article refers mainly to children born in a region, and has little to do with accents that may change as an adult (I only wrote a little about that).

Your first post is unclear as to whether you're referring to children, adults or both.

Your original claim, that it's easier to account for accents through immigration and not evolution, is undisputably false, based on the info provided. My explanation shows that accents developed likely 100% of the time (except perhaps for disorders), which is heavily suggestive of evolutionary factors! Your explanation provides examples which, if true, do NOT occur 100% of the time.

Also, even if your theory is correct, it can COEXIST with my theory as well, a theory that is supported by quite a bit of logic.

As such, and most importantly, you failed to explain your original claim that my theory was "bizarre".

You continue:

"To some extent, this supports your theory, as it explains why members of a social group would speak similarly - i.e. to emphasize a sense of belonging. However, I believe you extend this too far by using it to explain difference between groups as well as similarity within groups."

I never claimed that accents were created as a means to directly enhance community belonging, I claimed that they were perhaps created as a means to IDENTIFY community outsiders. That's it. I didn't mention anything else about accents being related to similarities within and differences between groups. I simply said an outsider may be more likely than an insider to attack someone. That greater likelihood is not related to their accent but related to other factors, such as the costs of attacking someone in your own community.

When you refer to school examples...as I said, it's possible immigration might be affecting things in addition to evolution, but it's certainly not as strong an argument as mine, based on the logic provided.

Remember, children at school could have been born in a foreign country and moved to London when 1-3 yrs old. Therefore they already developed the foreign accent. That's why I imply that research would be needed to figure out any effects from immigration!

I would be interested in seeing any such research, because like I said, there are many examples I can think of where children born here, with parents with strong accents, don't seem to develop a noticeably different accent than the people here. Therefore, I think it should be confirmed that it is indeed occurring at birth, and if so, why in some cases and not others.

Cheap Coach Bags link

3/23/2011 12:51:45 pm

Thank you every for sharing your blog, This article is really great, i love it very much.this is a fantastic survey,strong support!

luke

7/13/2011 05:46:44 am

There are countless problems with your post, but I'll just mention the two most glaring issues:
First of all, your entire argument is predicated on the idea that accents are an evolutionary development. You say that: "If accents developed according to an evolutionary need to identify the region that someone was born in, you would think that, in order to be most effective, accents would develop for 100% of the people born in a given region, correct? Well, that seems to be the case, as far as I know! I don't know of any cases whereby a newborn developed an accent that didn't match the prevailing accent in their region." This is precisely because accents are the result of environmental influence, and not genetically coded. A Japanese baby adopted by American parents will develop a perfect American accent. Similarly, does the fact that people reliably learn the language spoken by those around them suggest that language is genetic? Of course not. They speak that language or have that accent because of environmental exposure! These traits are not fixed by genes, but are the product of the environment. So the first problem is that your project assumes that accents are the product of evolution when in reality, as I think you'll now acknowledge, they have no genetic basis.

The second, and equally damning problem is the time scale you are working with. You propose that evolution, acting via natural selection on the human population, brought about accents as a means for people to identify outsiders. You also suggest that accents developed after agriculture. Setting aside the problem noted above (which is, admittedly, devastating for your view), we now encounter the challenge of explaining how accents managed to develop in the evolutionarily speaking, very short time frame of just a few thousand years. Moreover, you fail to appreciate that just as people enjoy an advantage when being able to identify outsiders, people also enjoy an advantage in not being identified as outsiders. So if the advantage in the first case is supposed to explain why accents developed, then why doesn’t the advantage in the second case lead to a lack of accent variation?

It’s nice to see people exploring interesting ideas, but it seems that you lack the basic background necessary to actually say anything interesting on the subject.

NoSuchThingAsAnOpinion link

7/13/2011 03:51:31 pm

Luke,

are you sure you want to go with that (and your writing in the other comment section) as your final answer? After all, I haven't lost an argument in years...the chances that you'd outsmart me are pretty low, after all....just look at the other comment sections...

luke

7/14/2011 01:26:14 am

part 1-3
Perhaps this is a parody so clever, or at least so sublet, that I missed it (or perhaps it’s neither, and I’m dull). If not, here is what I have to say: I don’t care much about your monetary offer. But I do think that you have read way too deeply into your Facebook IQ score. Boasting about it is classless. Moreover, if you are as smart as you insist, then people will pick up on that, they’ll see that you reason well, and they’ll conclude that your very smart. If you find yourself litigating the legitimacy of a self-administered ‘IQ’ test, you’ve already made the kind of mistake smart people rarely make; so it counts against you.

Here are some more specific comments. I’ll try to be constructive. And, with luck, I’ll remember to edit the invectives before sending.

Your theory begins with a time before the 20th century, and “perhaps before [cars and other] methods of transportation, such as ships, were developed”. You suggest that if people had kids, as most did, then they wouldn’t want to move much. I can appreciate the practical inconvenience of moving with children, or really moving at all, but you seem to under-appreciate our evolutionary history. We were, for a significant and formative portion of our recent evolutionary past (conservatively approximated, from the origin of modern human, circa 250,000 BC, until the advent of agriculture 10,000 years ago), a nomadic species. We moved a lot, and that’s how we populated the globe. The point is that moving with children is a modern inconvenience, but it can’t play the role in which you cast it.

Then you note that, “Daily harvesting wouldn't have allowed for much traveling at all, unless it was out of season.” This places your theory firmly in the last 10,000 years. We’ve already acquired language by then, the first signs of culture are becoming more common in the archeological record in this period, and we’re only a few short centuries away from the birth of beer. I hope you can appreciate how short 10,000 years is in evolutionary time, especially for an organism like us, that take decades to reproduce, and worse, that can devise all sorts of means of buffering the forces of natural selection. More on this to come.

luke

7/14/2011 01:26:57 am

part 2 of 3

You continue to discuss: “the community and it's relationship with crime”. Not to be pedantic, or a jerk, but you mean ‘its’. I haven’t read enough of your writing to know if it’s a systemic problem or a typo. You then offer 3 reasons to believe that one is more likely to be robbed by an outsider:
“1) the shame and economic hardship it could bring on the criminal and his family; after all, in relatively small communities there are stronger social links.” I agree, getting caught stealing or deceiving others in any way, will undermine your credibility among your fellow community members, and this is bad for obvious reasons.
“2) People often associate with their in-group more than they do an out-group. They have incentives to help other members of their community.”
3) It's easier to commit a crime against a total stranger rather than someone whom you are more likely to know.” This sounds reasonable. I still don’t see how accents and evolution feature into things, but I’m going to be patient.

Then you ask: “How could people living in larger communities be sure that the people they meet are indeed members of their community and not outsiders that may rob or kill them? After all, people living in different communities often look very similar to each other!” But a few paragraphs later you claim that “I also argue that people's faces have evolved over time in such a manner to allow differentiation between members of different communities.” Do you see the contradiction here? You suggest we need accents to tell each other apart but you also claim our faces have evolved so we can tell each other’s origin. I think both claims are nonsense, but even if you think they’re true you have to admit there is some tension there.

Now the answer to your question: “The answer is simple: people living in different regions would develop speech accents! People from different communities were immediately able to spot the outsiders.”

It might be true that accents could serve the purpose of allowing us to identify outsiders, but this doesn’t show that that’s actually what’s going on. Look up ‘just-so stories’. It will be informative.

It’s insane that you think people in neighboring towns have different facial features. All you’ve offered in support is some anecdotal evidence. There are a lot of problems with this, but I’ll just mention two really big ones: 1. Evolution takes time. There has to be a selective pressure (i.e., a reasons to sift organisms according to a particular feature), and the weaker that pressure the longer time is required to see any shift in the population. We sill have our appendixes, even though they do no good for us, and sometimes kill us. That’s because we can have surgery, and before surgery, not many of us died from a burst appendix. The selective force was weak. Given the proportion of people in the population dying from a 1000 more lethal things (e.g., disease, malnutrition, war, accident), do you really thing recognizing an outsider by their face really was a significant evolutionary pressure? 2. People didn’t stay in communities long, certainly not long enough to develop different faces. Most of our evolutionary history, recall, we were nomadic. And for the time in which you claim might apply, we still moved over generations. Evolution does not operation on physiological structure in the time frame of centuries, or even millennia. And again, why is this trait so important that only those that have it reproduce? More importantly, we have good empirical evidence in genetics that indicates that there was a great deal of mixing among early humans. Whenever there was any contact, there will most likely sexual contact as well, voluntary or otherwise.

luke

7/14/2011 01:28:08 am

part 3 of 3
I’ve already commented on this: “If accents developed according to an evolutionary need to identify the region that someone was born in, you would think that, in order to be most effective, accents would develop for 100% of the people born in a given region, correct? Well, that seems to be the case, as far as I know! I don't know of any cases whereby a newborn developed an accent that didn't match the prevailing accent in their region.” And reading it a second time I grow increasingly convinced that this is a farce. A parody or a joke. I really can’t say I’m sure you mean this.

And then you claim :” Now think about this: you often hear about how slow evolution can progress. There are plenty of examples of children who possess traits that aren't visibly evident in their parents. Children have eyes that are colored different than their parents' eyes. Tall children are often born to two short parents (this wouldn't be the most common scenario, but it occurs often enough that you can recount such instances). Smart children are born to two parents of average intelligence. The list goes on and on.”

All this list shows is that mixes two peoples genes, and developing that organism in many different environments, will result in children different from their parents. Further, whatever happens between two consecutive generations, it isn’t evolution. You seem confused here.

And you continue: “Although genes do pass down from parents to children, it would seem that, for some reason, the visible traits exhibited by the parents don't always pass down to their children.” That’s because you are mixing two different bits of DNA. And there are recessive genes. And the environment during development matters a huge amount. Even the difference a fraction of a degree at crucial stages of development can result in measurable changes in the phenotype that develops. This is why identical twins are different; imperfections in copying plus different environments during development. The temp in the womb changes if she’s in the sunlight or exercising, blood pressure fluctuates when she’s made, hormones vary wildly, sleep and nutrition change, one side of the womb is a different temperature than the other.

Then you exclaim: “But for some reason, a child always has the accent that their parent does! (Assuming, of course, that they were both born in the same region). This is strongly suggestive of the following: evolution considered an accent to be extremely important; so important that every single person in a region develops that trait!” This is funny reasoning about evolution. Why would she, evolution, if she has purposes as you suggest, simply place the name of our birthplace on our foreheads? That seems easier, and more reliable than accents that can be deceiving. I’ve asked before, and I’m still not clear how we got from the theoretical convince of accents for the purpose you claim, and actually thinking that your causal explanation is correct. My alternative suggestion was silly too. Try to put this in perspective! We evolve faces that indicate our town of origin and accents that allow us to identify outsiders (still not clear why you think accents are an evolutionary trait at all, but I’m playing along)?! But we still have appendixes that burst and kill us? And we still need glasses? If evolution was magic, as I suspect you think it is, then why wouldn’t she solve these clearly more important problems?

Then you talk about how long it takes to lose an accent when one moves. This is strange. What happens in a single life, acquiring a trait, will not be passed on to offspring. So what happens in a single life can’t support your claim about the evolutionary history of accents. Unless you have something else to say. And the whole time you’ve assumed that because it’s good to identify others as outsiders we’d evolve it. This isn’t guaranteed. And you forget all of the competing benefits that come with looking like everyone else. Surely passing as an insider and cheating your neighbor comes with an evolutionary advantage.

I think the argument is pretty much done there. It just seems really problematic.

I'm curious to see how you try to salvage your position...

NoSuchThingAsAnOpinion link

7/14/2011 11:39:11 am

Luke,

I'm very busy, but plan to respond within a week or two.

I'm not sure I can resist the temptation, although the temptation does fade sometimes.

I'm confident because i think of so many things when I write that it's extremely unlikely that you've caught me in a logical error, regardless of whether you think you have.

I haven't read your points yet, but i did read one short paragraph and noticed a logical error already.

luke

7/15/2011 03:52:47 am

you've set for yourself a rather ambitious goal; to win every argument you enter into. you made what I think is a pretty lousy argument about accents, and i've detailed many of its problems. i understand that you can't respond to every comment everyday, but not responding to what i've said would be tantamount to defeat for you. so i hope the 'temptation' doesn't fade. and it's not enough to say, 'i think about a lot when i'm writing, so your criticism doesn't apply'. not only does it make you sound a bit arrogant, but it also implies that you think others don't think about a lot when they're writing. and it's even worse to claim i've made some mistake without saying anything specific. i, unlike you, acknowledge that, as a mere mortal, i will make mistakes. but you have to point them out specifically, or you just sound like you don't actually have any real objections.
i hope next time you post something it includes some more detail. an actual argument. that kind of thing.

NoSuchThingAsAnOpinion link

7/23/2011 01:58:54 pm

Luke,

1) you write:

"you've set for yourself a rather ambitious goal; to win every argument you enter into."

When the $1,000 challenge was running, then yes, I can see how it would seem ambitious!

2) You write:

"not only does it make you sound a bit arrogant, but it also implies that you think others don't think about a lot when they're writing."

Perhaps other people would simply look at my motivation as being the opportunity to attract readers, rather than arrogance.

3) you write:

"and it's even worse to claim i've made some mistake without saying anything specific. "

Worse? I already made it clear that I planned to soon respond. Geez, it's not like I made a claim that I didn't intend to back up!

4) You claim:

"i, unlike you, acknowledge that, as a mere mortal, i will make mistakes. "

Where did I ever imply that I won't ever make mistakes?

Ok, let's get to responding to your points.

NoSuchThingAsAnOpinion link

7/23/2011 03:10:40 pm

Luke,

1) you write:

"There are countless problems with your post, but I'll just mention the two most glaring issues:"

By all means, please post them ALL! I can't wait! :)

Oh ya, aren't you doing the same thing you accused me of? when you wrote:

"and it's even worse to claim i've made some mistake without saying anything specific."

2) "You say that: 'If accents developed according to an evolutionary need to identify the region that someone was born in, you would think that, in order to be most effective, accents would develop for 100% of the people born in a given region, correct? Well, that seems to be the case, as far as I know! I don't know of any cases whereby a newborn developed an accent that didn't match the prevailing accent in their region.'

This is precisely because accents are the result of environmental influence, and not genetically coded."

Oh really? So you're claiming that the speech and sound of an accent don't come from the body? Where do they come from? Are they some type of hallucination?

Of course genes are involved, genes run the biology of the body!

In fact, genes are the dominant influence, not the environment.

The very fact that a person born in one place develops an accent different from that of someone born elsewhere is proof that genes that regulate speech are telling the body to acquire the accent of the local accent.

The only role of the environment is to tell the genes what accent to acquire. In other words, if the genes didn't ask for the accent, it wouldn't get it.

Unless, of course, you think that speech occurs automatically according to sound (meaning that if i speak to a person or, for that matter, a plant, the environmental influence of my language will cause the plant to talk), instead of as a result of neurons firing from one synapse to the other in the body?

2) “The second, and equally damning problem is the time scale you are working with. You propose that evolution, acting via natural selection on the human population, brought about accents as a means for people to identify outsiders. You also suggest that accents developed after agriculture. Setting aside the problem noted above (which is, admittedly, devastating for your view), we now encounter the challenge of explaining how accents managed to develop in the evolutionarily speaking, very short time frame of just a few thousand years.”

“Problem noted above” is “devastating”? What problem would that be? Developing after agriculture? You fail to explain why that would be a problem.

You then continue to say that another problem is the challenge of explaining how accents developed in just a few thousand years.

That’s no challenge at all. However, since you don’t bother to explain why you think it would be a challenge, I won’t bother to explain why it’s no challenge.

3) “ Moreover, you fail to appreciate that just as people enjoy an advantage when being able to identify outsiders, people also enjoy an advantage in not being identified as outsiders. So if the advantage in the first case is supposed to explain why accents developed, then why doesn’t the advantage in the second case lead to a lack of accent variation?“

I didn’t fail to appreciate that at all. Just because I don’t bring up the topic doesn’t mean I don’t have an explanation for it. Remember, I wrote earlier that I think of everything while I’m writing.

The evolution of accents benefits many more members of society than it disadvantages. Think about it. Lack of an accent would help someone steal or kill multiple members of a community, but the provision of an accent helps those same multiple people avoid being a victim of those crimes.

That’s the easy answer to your question.

4) “It’s nice to see people exploring interesting ideas, but it seems that you lack the basic background necessary to actually say anything interesting on the subject.”

First, you don’t know my background, so it’s impossible for you to comment on that. Second, perhaps you found something interesting enough about them to prompt you to comments? Third, the points you made weren’t that interesting, they were all illogical, as I’ve shown. I only responded because I didn’t want it to appear that you outsmarted me. And, because I’m bored, so I suppose your points were slightly more interesting than boredom.

Boy you assume quite a bit. You should try being less confrontational when you make points. Perhaps this will humble you.

I’m less inclined to answer the rest of your points. I was hoping for a challenge that it appears I might not get. Let me think about whether I want to answer the rest of your posts.

Evolution's Impact: Origin of Accents

Leave a Reply.

Archives