This episode is brought to you by Capital One.
Capital One's tech team isn't just talking about multi-agentic AI, they already deployed one.
It's called Chat Concierge, and it's simplifying car shopping.
Using self-reflection and layered reasoning with live API checks.
It doesn't just help buyers find a car they love.
It helps schedule a test drive, get pre-approved for financing, and estimate trade-in value.
Advanced, intuitive, and deployed.
That's how they stack.
That's technology at Capital One.
Save up to 30% on fall meal essentials during the Spice Up Fall event.
Now at Whole Foods Market with sales on organic honey crisp apples and winter squash.
Grab fresh and mild swordfish steaks for a cozy pan seared main.
Or make a hearty stew starring no antibiotics ever short ribs.
For something sweet.
Indulge in limited time pumpkin spice treats from the bakery and find even more in the aisles.
Spice up fall and save at Whole Foods Market in-store and online.
This message is brought to you by Apple Card.
Each Apple product, like the iPhone, is thoughtfully designed by skilled designers.
The titanium Apple Card is no different.
It's laser etched, has no numbers and it earns you daily cash on everything you buy, including 3 back on everything at Apple.
Apply for Apple Card on your iPhone in minutes.
Subject to credit approval, Apple Card is issued by Goldman Sachs Bank USA, Salt Lake City branch.
Terms and more at applecard.com.
You're listening to TED Talks Daily, where we bring you new ideas to spark your curiosity every day.
I'm your host, Elise Hugh.
Across species.
Communication shapes literally everything in the world, according to the legendary evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins.
In this fascinating conversation with linguist and TED guest curator John McWhorter, Richard dissects why communication is the thread that ties us all together and how our genes may be the ones pulling the strings.
Thank you.
So Richard, let's just get right started, as people say at the beginning of interviews like this.
I want to explore and I think you do too the fact that if linguist me reads the selfish gene, I'm always thinking oh, this is just like language.
And you have an interest in how the evolution of language is similar to the evolution of creatures.
In any language, any language, the language specifies more things than it needs to.
If you speak that language, you think of it as normal, but it isn't.
And so, for example, if you learn about the future tense in English, you're taught that we say will.
I will buy you some socks.
But if you think about it, that's not a sentence.
When would you say, I will buy you some socks?
That would only be at the culmination of an argument.
Really, more likely would be, I'm going to buy you some socks.
Or you could say I buy you some socks tomorrow, which gives it a sense of event, or I shall buy you some socks, which doesn't really mean anything, but yet it's another way of saying it.
Our future tends to overdoze it.
I've often thought, so much of language really doesn't need to be there.
No language needs to be as picky about the future as English.
Do creatures, do plant, planters, do they overdo it in the same way?
And if so, why?
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 there.
There's too much.
It's too much.
When Charles Darwin proposed his theory of sexual selection, his co-discoverer of natural selection, Alfred Russell 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 said, 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.
And the only thing that could stop it is if the tail became so large that it would interfere.
That's right.
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.
That's a pleasing idea, especially for language people.
Yeah, I have ...
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.
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 ol anymore.
You cannot walk ol 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?
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 your dribble.
It's a dead vestige.
And the most interesting example of this, this 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, 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 would 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.
Yes, it would.
But these genes can be turned back.
I just thought of an example.
This truly is spontaneous, and that's not my usual.
Oh, 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 -al nowadays, such as your tax assessmental or something like that.
Have you tried hardle, by the way?
What's hardle?
Hardle.
Oh, it's wonderful.
It's just much more difficult.
It's hardler than wordle?
Yes, yes.
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.
They don't see you as doing something important.
Whereas if you're speaking Japanese, they're not going to 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 with donkeys and eels?
If I were to go into a Glasgow pub... and say, , 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.
They love you, right.
And that's the difference in 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 olivacea with a high-pitched call, 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 climb that you would gradually get as you look from.
These are very closely related species.
As you go from west to east, the call will get gradually deeper and deeper and deeper.
That's what you might expect.
The reverse happens.
It's a reverse climb.
As you get into a zone of overlap, the Olivacea call goes up and the Pteranensis 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.
And being hit.
And being jumped.
Yes.
Yeah.
And I think it's probably true.
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.
There are many people who say the same thing about human speech that people deliberately try to distinguish themselves from speakers of other dialects for social identification.
Yes, we're not one of those.
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 words.
Yes, yeah.
Yeah.
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, 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?
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.
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 there 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, why the word... I made a hat.
Why is it spelled like that?
It says made.
Why do we say made?
Because the a became e over time.
No one noticed, but that's called the great vowel shift.
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.
Could the whole series, a cascade of vowel shifts, have followed for functional reasons, disambiguation.
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 change 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 weed.
Here's 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 it in English.
So we have what? where, why, when.
All of them begin with wuh.
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 5000 years ago that all begin with kuh and they all feel alike.
The kuh dropped off because the first sound in a word might drop off.
Like you say what's that 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 changes may be random-er than creature change.
I think they are.
Yes.
What I don't understand is why North Americans don't differentiate between can and can.
Because we don't have to.
You do, because cannot, they're the exact opposite of each other.
But context takes care of so much, and so we just suffer.
Okay, well, I have to agree to differ about that.
Look, I want to ask you, I want to challenge something.
Why?
Okay.
Okay.
Proto-Indo-European, supposed to be the ancestor of a very large number of languages, all European languages except Basque and several Indian.
The music for it is... That's Proto-Indo-European.
It's in what is now Ukraine.
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 is 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...
It's biology envy that makes linguists try to trace back to a single ... 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...
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 dialect, 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 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-marsupial 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.
In previous generations.
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, all genes will 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 between bacterial genomes.
We can assume there's always been mixture.
The pure language would have been spoken for about 10 minutes, probably 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 a 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.
We have.
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.
Thank you very much.
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.com slash curation guidelines.
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 Green, Lucy Little and Tansika Sangmarnivong.
This episode was mixed by Christopher Faisy-Bogan.
Additional support from Emma Taubner and Daniela Balarezo.
I'm Elise Hugh.
I'll be back tomorrow with a fresh idea for your feed.
Thanks for listening. and it's simplifying car shopping.
Using self-reflection and layered reasoning with live API checks.
It doesn't just help buyers find a car they love.
It helps schedule a test drive, get pre-approved for financing, and estimate trade-in value.
Advanced, intuitive, and deployed.
That's how they stack.
That's technology at Capital One.
In a world of seismic change, will your business shape the future or be shaped by it?
How will we capture the imagination of tomorrow's consumers?
Overcome operational constraints to focus on future growth.
And unlock economic and social prosperity through environmental responsibility.
With EY's full spectrum of services across sectors, we're all in to shape the future with confidence.
Start your transformation journey at ey.com slash transformation.
Your nonprofit's mission is big, but your team is small.
That's where Bonterra's Network for Good comes in.
It's fundraising software built for organizations like yours.
No IT team required, just intuitive tools that help you reach more donors, grow support and stay organized.
With dedicated guidance and proven strategies, you can focus on changing lives instead of chasing spreadsheets.
Big impact, less stress.
That's Bonterra Network for Good.
