Richard Dawkins (3:38)

I suppose you could say that poetry is something extravagant and overdone. And if I think about the nearest approach to poetry in wild creatures, it might be something like a peacock's tail where it's far from utilitarian. The idea is that the male is attempting to seduce a female and there's massive overkill.

John McWhorter (4:02)

There's too much.

Richard Dawkins (4:03)

It's too much. When Charles Darwin proposed his theory of sexual selection, his co discoverer of natural selection is Alfred Russel Wallace didn't like it because he wanted it to be more utilitarian. And Darwin was happy to say simply, it's female whim. Females simply like this extravagant thing. This argument wasn't really settled until the 1930s when R.A. fisher pointed out mathematically, well, intuitively, mathematically, that if you make certain assumptions, there is a runaway process, an exponential runaway process as natural selection works upon female taste. Genes of female taste getting more and more extravagant. Male tails get more extravagant and this runs away exponentially to produce this ridiculous extravagant advertisement. There are other theories, but I think that's perhaps the nearest approach you get to what you want.

John McWhorter (5:12)

And the only thing that could stop it is if the tale became so large that it would interfere.

Richard Dawkins (5:17)

Eventually utilitarian considerations will interfere. I sometimes wonder whether, I think Jeffrey Miller has suggested this, that it might be that human poetry, epic poems, recitals, singing, is a form of sexual selection and that humans might have evolved the capacity to advertise to the opposite sex by being virtuoso poets, virtuoso reciters of tribal epic poems, something of that sort. Like a peacock's tail.

John McWhorter (5:52)

That's a pleasing idea, especially for language people. Yeah. I have a related question then. A lot of what is in a language is dragged along. Like to use an aging analogy, tin cans dragged along behind a car after a wedding. I've never actually seen that Outside of a cartoon. But it must have happened at some point, probably in the 50s. But that. And so, so much of language is that. For example, in the English language we'll say something like to dribble. Now, that comes from drip. So a drip is just dwip, dwip. And then dribble is like that. Now you think, well, okay, that's just that one. But then imagine you are nipping on something. So you just go like a wolf nipping. But then nibble is kind of like. And so that O means. And we use it in words like a giggle and spackle and sparkle. One spark is you get shocked from a fuse that goes out. Sparkle is like that. Now we can't make any new words with ul anymore. You cannot walkle across the stage. It's long dead. Only some ancient Germanic person would have been able to use it. So it's dead. Now, the analogy to this, I think, with DNA is junk DNA. Is it true that there is DNA dragged along like that that used to mean something but didn't, or is that analogy off?

Richard Dawkins (7:29)

That is true. The phrase junk DNA is rather overused in different ways. But I think what you're talking about is what are called pseudogenes, where they're just dead vestiges. Actually, it's a little bit different than what your dribble. It's a dead vestige. And the most interesting example of this is a kind of fossil that's gone is the sense of smell. As you know, humans have a very poor sense of smell compared to many other mammals. The interesting thing is that we still have the genes that would make us have that kind of sense of smell. They've just been turned off. So we have a whole repertoire of ancient mammal smell genes. They've just simply been switched off. They're vestiges. They're their pseudo genes. I sort of feel if only they could be turned back on again, we would experience wonderful exotic perfumes that we cannot imagine. And I could imagine the sort of wine connoisseurs who go far beyond the inklings of lead pencil mixed with BlackBerry in the satisfying finish. That kind of thing. I mean, that would go way, way beyond. If only we had all these genes turned on.

John McWhorter (8:50)

Yes, it would. And so. But these genes can be turned back. I just thought of an example. This truly is spontaneous. And that's not my usual ul wordle. And so that's not a word. But now it is. We're reusing that suffix. And so it's a cute little wordy thing. And so you can kind of bring it alive and maybe there'll be other things ending in O and nowadays, such as your tax assessment tool or something like that.

Richard Dawkins (9:15)

Have you tried Hardle, by the way?

John McWhorter (9:17)

What's hardle?

Richard Dawkins (9:17)

Hardle? Oh, it's wonderful. It's just much more difficult.

John McWhorter (9:21)

It's hardler than word work. That is perfect. Anyway, I have another G. Professor Dawkins question, which is this. I have been present when you said that there was a way of telling a difference. This is getting into my thing between a language and a dialect. People are always asking a linguist, what's a dialect? What's a language? How can you tell? Is Scots a dialect of English or is Scots another language? And you said, and I thought this was very clever that you know that someone's speaking a dialect of something else rather than a separate language. If when you speak the dialect, the native speaker either laughs at you or is insulted.

Richard Dawkins (10:02)

Yes.

John McWhorter (10:03)

They don't see you as doing something important. Whereas if you're speaking Japanese, they, they're not gonna laugh at you. At least when you're there, they are honored that you're trying. And so that. Is there an equivalent to that in telling a difference between species and subspecies? What would Donkeys.

Richard Dawkins (10:17)

And if I were to go into a Glasgow pub and say, hoots mon the noo, I would probably get thumped. But if I were to go into an Amsterdam pub and attempt to speak Dutch, they would be all over me.

John McWhorter (10:31)

They love you. Right.

Richard Dawkins (10:32)

And that's the difference between a dialect and a language. Well, there are two species of frog in North America. Microhyla carolinensis on the east side and Microhyla olivacea on the west side. And Olivacea has a higher pitched call. So that's Olivasia with a high pitched.

John McWhorter (10:56)

Call.

Richard Dawkins (10:58)

And Carolinensis has a lower pitched call. There's not much difference between them. Now, you might expect that if it was like you might expect a cline, you would gradually get, as you look from. These are very closely related species. As you go from west to east, the core would get gradually deeper and deeper and deeper. That's what you might expect. The reverse happens. It's a reverse cline. As you get into a zone of overlap, the. The Olivasia call goes up and the Chironensis call goes down. So that these creatures are exaggerating the difference between them. So in the zone of overlap, the difference between them is exaggerated compared to where they don't overlap. This is equivalent to migrating into the Glasgow pub and attempting to do a Scots dialect. And Being. And being hit for and being jumped.

John McWhorter (11:58)

Yeah.

Richard Dawkins (11:58)

And I think it's probably true. I mean, Dobzhansky had this theory that when new species form, when an ancestral species diverges to form new subspecies and then new species, there is an intermediate and interregnum when natural selection favors anything to differentiate them, anything to make them sound different or look different or smell different, to exaggerate the difference. And so there is a kind of acceleration of the speciation process.

John McWhorter (12:33)

There are many people who say the same thing about human speech, that people deliberately try to distinguish themselves from speakers of other dialects.

Richard Dawkins (12:43)

For social media, they're not one of those.

John McWhorter (12:44)

Identification. Right, right. I frankly suspect that a lot of that has to do with maybe a small collection of words. I am skeptical that people change their accent on purpose because it's so deeply seated. However, there are other linguists who would counter me on that. And certainly it's true of words that you try to use different. You try to use different words.

Richard Dawkins (13:06)

Yes. Yeah, yeah.

John McWhorter (13:08)

So here is another question for you. Natural selection means that creatures changes are all, or maybe mostly due to survival. And so the longer neck of a giraffe, presumably, was so that it could reach higher. That helped in terms of getting food. And then there's the okapi, which is a giraffe. That didn't happen to do that. Now, of course, in language, the way I mainly think of it is that most change in a language, how you get from Old English, Beowulf and Middle English, Chaucer, Modern English, this is not survival. Old English was fine the way it was. Middle English sounded perfectly normal to Chaucer. This, to us, feels like the only way English should really be. And that's the way it's always been. It's drift. It's just that things happen and you don't know it in your lifetime, and next thing you know, it's a different language. Now, there's also drift in natural selection, Right.

Richard Dawkins (14:08)

Well, drift is, in a way, the opposite of natural selection. Evolutionary change can come about through drift, where there's no selective force, there's no advantage in this gene or that gene. It's just random drift. And that's probably a very important force in evolution. It's not the force that produces interesting things. It's not the force that produces adaptation, that produces better wings, better legs, better voices. But especially if you look at a molecular level, if you look at evolution molecularly, what you see is that changes are neutral. They have no. It's rather like changing the font on your word Processor from Geneva to Times New Roman, the meaning is the same, but the actual letters are different. So that's an extreme example of drift, and it's very important. But selection is the interesting part of evolution. What I wonder is really putting a question back to you now. Is it all drift in language evolution or is there a. We could call it memetic selection, where if you think of words as memes, then using the word meme in the proper sense, by the way, not the so called Internet meme, is there a sense in which natural selection, not natural selection, a form of selection, favors certain. What about the great vowel shift? For example, is it possible that meaning.

John McWhorter (15:46)

The word I made a hat, why is it spelled like that? It says made. Why do we say made? Because the ah became e over time. No one noticed. But that's called the great vowel shift.

Richard Dawkins (15:59)

Okay, so suppose one vowel shifted for some reason. Then that might have caused a necessity for other vowels to shift in order to disambiguate, because there might have been confusion resulting from the first vowel shift. And could the whole series, a cascade of vowel shifts, have followed for functional reasons, disambiguation?

John McWhorter (16:24)

It's a great idea, folks. Imagine the vowels. Do any of you have chinchillas? Of course. So you put them all in a cage and they're always kind of moving all around each other. Chinchillas are like vowels. The vowels in your mouth are always kind of moving around. And yes, there is a such thing as a chain shift where it almost seems like the language is trying to keep things clear. That's a weak force. But just as often the vowels fall together and create homonyms that give you trouble. Or a very typical language thing. I'm sitting here, I'm flying by the seat of my pants, and so unfortunately, I'm going to have to go into a wee, the weed. There are languages spoken in northeast Siberia. I'm not even going to give their name, but that's where it is. And think about in English. So we have what, where, why, when all of them begin with W. You kind of like it that way. It makes them easier to learn all of those question words. In these northeastern Siberia languages, you have a series of words like that 5,000 years ago that all begin with k and they all feel alike. The K dropped off because the first sound in a word might drop off. Like you say what's at instead of what's that? It all dropped off. And so that means that in those languages now, instead of what, where, when, why, it's ut, air And I like that. They're not as clear, they're not as learnable. They're all screwed up. That kind of thing happens every bit as much as things that help make things clearer in language. And nobody minds, because by the time a child grows up with it and realizes that there's something off about it, it's too late to learn anything else. And so I feel like language change is maybe randomer than creature change.

Richard Dawkins (18:02)

Yes. What I don't understand is why North Americans don't differentiate between can and can.

John McWhorter (18:08)

Because we don't have to.

Richard Dawkins (18:09)

You do, because cannot. They're the exact opposite of each other.

John McWhorter (18:13)

But context takes care of so much, and so we just suffer.

Richard Dawkins (18:17)

Okay, well, we have to. I have took me to differ about that. Look, I want to ask you. I want to challenge something. Wa.

John McWhorter (18:24)

Okay, okay.

Richard Dawkins (18:27)

Proto Indo European, supposed to be the ancestor of a very large number of languages, all European languages except Basque and several Indonesian.

John McWhorter (18:37)

The music for it is. That's proto Indo European. It's in what is now Ukraine. Continue.

Richard Dawkins (18:44)

Okay. Well, in evolutionary biology, it is a fact that if you take any two animals you like, like for example, you and a kangaroo, there is a single individual animal which is the most recent common ancestor of you and a kangaroo, and that's an individual. I literally mean an individual. There was a mother animal, looked a bit like a shrew or something like that, which had two children playing together in the dust. And one of those children became the ancestor of humans, and the other of those children became the ancestor of kangaroos. That's literally true. An individual. Now, I suspect that linguists suffer from. Well, you've heard the phrase physics envy. Academic disciplines envy, physicists. Well, I suspect that linguists envy biologists this ability to trace back to a single ancestor. I don't think there was such a thing as proto Indo European in that sense. I suspect that it was never a. Well, of course there was, but the idea that there was a single language, which then spread by some kind of mysterious influence all over Europe and the Indian subcontinent. It would have been a hybrid of some sort, as I believe we could say English is. Because English is a mixture of Germanic and Romance languages. I bet proto Indo European was a hybrid in the same way. And it's biology envy that makes linguists try to trace back to a single.

John McWhorter (20:43)

We do have that envy. I wake up with it daily. But you are correct about proto Indo European. We'll never know exactly, but no doubt it was shot through with probably words and grammar of other languages. My best guess would be languages spoken today in the Caucasus Mountains, for one. Certainly there's no reason why not, because the people were always conquering each other and mating and mixing together. It had to happen. And so no, there was no pure proto Indo European. And even, I'll give you even more, it's becoming clearer that, you know, Indo European is many, many languages, several dozen languages. It's becoming clearer that they trace back to at least two different dialects of proto Indo European. I won't go further than that. And it's clear that there's that and all languages are hybrids to an extent. However, I would say that there would theoretically have been some one proto Indo European language that was mixed, that became the other ones. And there was constant mixture, kind of like, if I may, the way you talk about the life of a gene, but which is snaking through all sorts of various creatures such that it's hard to say exactly. And tell me if I'm getting this wrong, that there was this proto kangaroo and this protomarsupial and then a proto placental and then there was just one shrew. My impression was that maybe there were other shrews that contributed genes to both of those strains as things went through in previous generations.

Richard Dawkins (22:21)

All that I said was that you can trace back to a single common ancestor. Admittedly you can go back before that and then of course they will all steal, come in from everywhere. By the way, in bacteria it's quite different. In bacteria it's much more like, I think, of language where you really do have cut and paste going on all the time.

John McWhorter (22:40)

Between bacterial genomes, we can assume there's always been mixture. The pure language would have been spoken for about 10 minutes, probably in somewhere in Africa above what is now the Sahara, maybe in East Africa. After that, once you have more than one, there would have been hybridity between the two. There was always mixture as things went along. So basically, yes. And you know what, Richard? I think that we have reached the limit of our time, which is unfortunate because I could do this until I expired, but we have limited time. And so thank you very much for being here to allow me to live out one of my life's fantasies. This was wonderful.

Richard Dawkins (23:23)

Thank you very much.

Podcast Host Elise Hu (23:29)

That was Richard Dawkins in conversation with John McWhorter at TED 2025. If you're curious about TED's curation, find out more at Ted.comCurationGuidelines and that's it for today. TED Talks Daily is part of the TED Audio Collective. This talk was fact checked by the TED research team and produced and edited by our team, Martha Estefanos, Oliver Friedman, Brian Greene, Lucy Little and Tansika Songmanivong. This episode was mixed by Christopher Faizy Bogan. Additional support from Emma Tobner and Daniela Balaurazo. I'm Elise Hu. I'll be back tomorrow with a fresh idea for your feed. Thanks for listening.

Chubb Insurance Announcer (24:16)

If you ask for the gold standard in personal and commercial insurance, the answer will always be Chubb. We assess your unique exposures and develop innovative products with broader coverage, helping you prevent problems before they occur. Also, we can deliver tailored solutions that help protect what matters most to to you. From personalization to innovation, Chubb redefines what insurance should be for you so you can stay ahead of risk and make informed decisions. That's excellence in action. Learn more@chubb.com what's up Grace?

John McWhorter (24:46)

From the Working Hub podcast here and I want to tell you about something exciting. You're watching every dollar and Walmart Business helps you stretch each one from office supplies to snacks and cleaning gear. You'll get everyday low prices plus easy bulk ordering and fast delivery. And with tools like spend tracking and multi user accounts, staying organized is simple. Save time, money and hassle. @business.walmart.com it's free to sign up. Banking with Capital One helps you keep more money in your wallet with no fees or minimums on checking accounts and no overdraft fees. Just ask the Capital One Bank Guy. It's pretty much all he talks about in a good way. He'd also tell you that this podcast is his favorite podcast too. Ah, really? Thanks. Capital One Bank Guy what's in your wallet? Term supply see capitalone.com bank capital1NA member FDIC.