Critically Evaluate the View that Language is a Contingent System of Symbols which Accidentally Develops in the Human Community
Introduction
The nature of language has been a profound topic in philosophy. One prominent view is that language is a contingent system of symbols—a human invention that developed accidentally over time. This view considers language as neither innate nor necessary, but as a product of social and cultural evolution. However, this claim has been subject to extensive scrutiny and critique from linguistic, cognitive, and philosophical perspectives.
Understanding the Contingent Symbol System View
The contingent view suggests that language emerged through random or situational developments in early human societies. Symbols were assigned to sounds, objects, or actions for communication, but there was nothing necessary or predetermined about the connections. This theory supports the idea that language could have developed very differently, or not at all, depending on environmental and cultural circumstances.
This perspective aligns with empiricist and behaviorist philosophies, which argue that knowledge—including language—is acquired through sensory experience and conditioning rather than being innate or pre-configured.
Arguments Supporting the View
- Diversity of Languages: The existence of thousands of structurally different languages indicates that language is shaped by culture rather than biology alone.
- Language Change Over Time: Languages evolve and shift dramatically, suggesting that their rules and symbols are flexible and socially influenced.
- Learning through Exposure: Children learn language from their environment, which supports the idea that language is acquired, not innate.
Criticisms and Alternative Views
Despite its appeal, the contingency view faces several criticisms:
1. Chomsky’s Nativist Theory
Noam Chomsky proposed the idea of a Universal Grammar—an innate set of linguistic principles shared by all humans. According to this view, humans are biologically predisposed to acquire language, and this undermines the claim that language developed purely accidentally.
2. Cognitive Science and Language Acquisition
Studies show that infants exhibit remarkable linguistic capabilities early in life, including the ability to detect syntax and phonemes. This supports the idea that the brain is hardwired for language, making it less contingent than the theory suggests.
3. Symbol Grounding Problem
If language is merely a system of arbitrary symbols, how do these symbols acquire meaning? This question challenges the idea of pure contingency and suggests the need for deeper semantic connections grounded in human cognition or experience.
4. Evolutionary Adaptation
Some evolutionary biologists argue that language is an adaptive trait that evolved due to its survival advantage, thus implying that language is not merely accidental but a product of natural selection.
Conclusion
While the view that language is a contingent and accidental system of symbols explains some aspects of linguistic diversity and evolution, it fails to account for the innate cognitive structures supporting language acquisition and use. The balance of evidence suggests that language is both socially constructed and biologically grounded. Therefore, it cannot be entirely classified as a contingent accident; rather, it appears to be an emergent property of human evolution shaped by both nature and nurture.