Get Your Weekly Digest

Receive the best podcast summaries and insights delivered to your inbox every week.

We respect your privacy. Unsubscribe anytime.

TED Talks Daily

The link between evolution and language | Richard Dawkins

with Richard Dawkins

Published September 18, 2025
View Show Notes

About This Episode

Host Elise Hugh introduces a conversation between evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and linguist John McWhorter exploring parallels between biological evolution and the evolution of language. They compare extravagance in language to sexual selection in animals, discuss linguistic "junk" and genetic pseudogenes, examine dialects versus languages through a frog speciation analogy, contrast selection with drift in both domains, and debate how mixed and hybridized any "proto" ancestral language must have been.

Topics Covered

Language history Evolutionary biology Sexual selection Junk DNA Dialect vs language Speciation Genetic drift Proto-Indo-European Sense of smell Language evolution

Disclaimer: We provide independent summaries of podcasts and are not affiliated with or endorsed in any way by any podcast or creator. All podcast names and content are the property of their respective owners. The views and opinions expressed within the podcasts belong solely to the original hosts and guests and do not reflect the views or positions of Summapod.

Quick Takeaways

  • Dawkins and McWhorter draw explicit parallels between linguistic excess (like multiple future-tense forms) and biological extravagance such as the peacock's tail, framed as products of selection rather than strict utility.
  • They compare linguistic relics like the "-le" suffix in words such as "dribble" and "giggle" to genetic pseudogenes, highlighting how both languages and genomes carry vestigial elements that no longer serve their original functions.
  • A frog case study shows how closely related species exaggerate their differences where they overlap, paralleling how speakers can react negatively when outsiders imitate their dialect, reinforcing group boundaries.
  • The conversation distinguishes adaptive selection from random drift in both evolution and language, with McWhorter arguing that language change is often more random and tolerant of inefficiency than biological adaptation.
  • They question the idea of a pure proto-Indo-European language, suggesting it was likely a hybrid shaped by constant contact and mixture, much like gene flow and horizontal transfer in biology.

Podcast Notes

Show introduction and setup of the conversation

Host introduces the theme of communication and evolution

Elise Hugh frames communication as shaping everything across species[2:03]
• She says that, according to Richard Dawkins, communication shapes literally everything in the world across species
• She notes that communication is the thread that ties us all together and that our genes may be pulling the strings
Introduction of speakers[2:11]
• Elise identifies Richard Dawkins as a legendary evolutionary biologist
• She identifies John McWhorter as a linguist and TED guest curator who will converse with Dawkins

Parallels between evolution of language and evolution of organisms

McWhorter opens by connecting "The Selfish Gene" to language

He says that when linguist him reads "The Selfish Gene", he constantly thinks "this is just like language"[2:35]
• He notes that Dawkins has an interest in how the evolution of language is similar to the evolution of creatures
Goal to explore parallels between language and biological evolution[2:45]
• McWhorter explicitly says he wants to explore the parallels and believes Dawkins does too

Excess and over-specification in language

McWhorter observes that languages specify more than they need to[2:59]
• He claims that in any language, the language specifies more things than it needs to
• He notes that native speakers perceive this excess as normal, but it isn't necessary from a functional standpoint
Example: English future tense forms[3:10]
• He describes how learners are taught that English expresses future with "will" as in "I will buy you some socks"
• He points out that "I will buy you some socks" is rarely a neutral sentence; it tends to appear as the culmination of an argument
• He notes that more likely future expressions in real usage are "I'm going to buy you some socks" or "I buy you some socks tomorrow" or "I shall buy you some socks"
• He remarks that "I shall buy you some socks" doesn't really mean anything different yet is another option
• He concludes that the English future tense is "overdone" and that no language needs to be as picky about the future as English is

Question: Do organisms show similar "overdoing" or extravagance?

Dawkins replies by invoking poetry and peacocks[3:58]
• He suggests that poetry might be seen as something extravagant and overdone in human communication
• He points to the peacock's tail as the nearest approach to poetry in wild creatures, describing it as far from utilitarian
Peacock's tail as sexual selection and overkill[4:11]
• Dawkins explains that the male peacock uses the extravagant tail to attempt to seduce a female
• He characterizes the tail as "massive overkill" and says it's "too much"
Darwin vs. Wallace and the origin of sexual selection theory[4:25]
• Dawkins recounts that when Charles Darwin proposed sexual selection, Alfred Russel Wallace, co-discoverer of natural selection, didn't like it
• He says Wallace wanted selection to be more utilitarian, whereas Darwin was comfortable attributing extravagance to "female whim"
Fisher's runaway selection model[5:05]
• Dawkins notes the argument wasn't settled until the 1930s when R.A. Fisher offered an explanation
• He says Fisher pointed out mathematically-"well intuitively mathematically"-that given certain assumptions, there is a runaway, exponential process
• He describes how natural selection can work on female taste genes to become more extravagant, which in turn selects for more extravagant male tails, leading to exponential runaway
• He calls the result a "ridiculous, extravagant advertisement" like the peacock's tail
Constraints on runaway extravagance[5:05]
• Dawkins agrees with McWhorter that eventually utilitarian considerations will stop the runaway process
• He states that if the tail became so large that it interfered with survival, it would curtail further exaggeration

Hypothesis: Human poetry and epic as sexual selection

Dawkins mentions Geoffrey Miller's suggestion[5:43]
• He says Geoffrey Miller has suggested that human poetry, epic poems, recitals, and singing could be forms of sexual selection
• He speculates that humans may have evolved the capacity to advertise to the opposite sex by being virtuoso poets or epic reciters, like having a verbal peacock's tail
• McWhorter calls this a pleasing idea, especially for "language people"

Dragged-along elements in language and pseudogenes in DNA

McWhorter's analogy of linguistic "tin cans"

He likens some language elements to tin cans dragged behind a wedding car[6:29]
• He refers to the familiar cartoon trope of tin cans trailing a car after a wedding, suggesting language drags along old material similarly
Example of the "-le" suffix in English[6:39]
• He notes that "dribble" comes from "drip", representing repeated small drops
• He compares "nipping" (as a wolf might) to "nibble" with a similar repeated nuance
• He observes that -le appears in words like "giggle", "spackle", and "sparkle", where it conveys a repeated or diminutive sense, such as multiple sparks
• He argues that historically this -le suffix meant something like repetitive action, but speakers today cannot use it productively to coin new words like "walkle"

Question: Is there analogous "junk" or vestige in DNA?

Dawkins introduces pseudogenes and junk DNA terminology[7:36]
• He affirms that there is DNA that used to mean something but no longer does, and that this is called pseudogenes
• He distinguishes pseudogenes as dead vestiges, slightly different from McWhorter's -le example but conceptually related
Human sense of smell as a key example of pseudogenes[8:15]
• Dawkins points out that humans have a very poor sense of smell compared to many other mammals
• He says humans still have the genes that would give a strong sense of smell; they have simply been turned off
• He calls these switched-off smell genes vestiges and pseudogenes, describing them as a whole repertoire of ancient mammal smell genes
Speculation on reactivating smell genes[8:29]
• Dawkins imagines that if these genes could be turned back on, humans would experience wonderful, exotic perfumes beyond current imagination
• He jokes that wine connoisseurs' current descriptions (like a hint of lead pencil with blackberry in the finish) would be vastly expanded with full olfactory capacity

Reviving old linguistic patterns: Wordle and "-le"

McWhorter's spontaneous example of reusing "-le"

He brings up "Wordle" as a modern coinage[9:18]
• He notes that "Wordle" wasn't originally a standard word, but now it is, and it reuses the -le suffix in a playful way
• He suggests that other new formations with -le might arise, joking about possible new terms like a tax assessment-le

Dawkins mentions "Hardle"

He asks McWhorter if he has tried "Hardle"[9:36]
• He describes Hardle as a harder version of Wordle, "hardler" than Wordle

Dialect vs language and biological analogies

Criterion for distinguishing language from dialect

McWhorter recalls Dawkins's proposed test[9:46]
• He says linguists are often asked how to tell a dialect from a language (e.g., whether Scots is a dialect of English or a separate language)
• He reports that Dawkins once said you know it's a dialect if, when you speak it, the native speaker either laughs at you or is insulted
• He contrasts this with speaking a fully separate language, like Japanese, where native speakers are honored that you try

Dawkins's pub examples to illustrate dialect vs language

Attempting Scots in Glasgow[10:38]
• Dawkins imagines going into a Glasgow pub and saying "hoots mon the noo" and expects he would probably get thumped
Attempting Dutch in Amsterdam[10:49]
• He contrasts that with going into an Amsterdam pub and attempting to speak Dutch, where he says they would be "all over" him and love it
• He reiterates that this difference in reaction captures the distinction between dialect and language in his heuristic

Frog species and exaggerated differences in zones of overlap

Description of the two Micrahyla frog species[10:56]
• Dawkins describes two species of frog in North America: Micrahyla carolinensis in the east and Micrahyla olivacea in the west
• He notes that olivacea has a higher-pitched call, while carolinensis has a lower-pitched call
Expectation of a gradual cline vs observed reverse cline[11:35]
• Dawkins says one might expect a gradual cline in call pitch from west to east if the species are closely related
• Instead, he reports the reverse: in the zone of overlap, olivacea calls go up in pitch and carolinensis calls go down
• He concludes that the frogs exaggerate differences in the overlap zone compared to non-overlap areas
Analogy to dialect performance and social boundaries[12:11]
• Dawkins explicitly equates this frog behavior to his Glasgow pub example where an outsider imitating Scots may be negatively received
• He links it to the idea that people try to distinguish themselves from speakers of other dialects, especially in overlap contexts

Dobzhansky's theory on early speciation and differentiation

Natural selection favoring differentiation traits[12:38]
• Dawkins references Dobzhansky's theory that when an ancestral species diverges, there is an interregnum when natural selection favors traits that differentiate the emerging species
• He lists sounding different, looking different, or smelling different as features that may be favored to exaggerate distinctions
• He describes this as an acceleration of the speciation process because differentiation is selected for

Human dialects and deliberate differentiation

McWhorter notes claims about deliberate accent change[13:13]
• He says some linguists argue that people deliberately try to distinguish themselves from speakers of other dialects
• He voices skepticism that people change their accent on purpose because accent is so deeply seated, though others disagree
Agreement on lexical differentiation[13:37]
• McWhorter concedes that people certainly do choose different words deliberately to distinguish themselves

Selection versus drift in evolution and language change

Natural selection vs drift in organismal evolution

McWhorter contrasts survival-based change with language change[13:59]
• He notes that in natural selection, changes are mostly due to survival advantages, giving the giraffe's longer neck as an example for reaching higher food
• He mentions the okapi as a giraffe relative that did not evolve such a long neck
Language change as largely non-survival-based drift[14:32]
• McWhorter states that changes from Old English to Middle English to Modern English aren't about survival; each stage worked fine for its speakers
• He describes this as drift: imperceptible changes over lifetimes that eventually accumulate into a different language

Dawkins defines genetic drift and its importance

Drift as the opposite of natural selection[14:29]
• Dawkins characterizes drift as, in a way, the opposite of natural selection
• He explains that drift occurs when there is no selective force; different genes have no advantage over one another and change happens randomly
• He asserts that drift is probably a very important force in evolution, especially at the molecular level
Drift compared to changing fonts[15:21]
• Dawkins likens molecular-level drift to changing the font on a word processor from Geneva to Times New Roman: the meaning remains the same, but the letters differ
• He calls this an extreme example of drift and notes it does not produce new adaptations

Question whether language evolution has a selection-like force

Dawkins asks if language evolution is all drift[15:32]
• He asks McWhorter whether all language evolution is drift or whether something like memetic selection also operates
• He suggests thinking of words as memes in his original sense, not internet memes, and asks whether some forms are favored because they work better
Example: Great Vowel Shift and disambiguation hypothesis[15:58]
• Dawkins brings up the Great Vowel Shift, referring to why "made" is spelled with an "a" though pronounced "meid"
• He posits that if one vowel shifts, other vowels might shift to avoid confusion and maintain distinctions
• He asks whether a cascade of vowel shifts could be functionally driven by disambiguation needs

McWhorter's chinchilla metaphor and randomness in vowel change

Vowels as moving chinchillas[16:44]
• McWhorter asks the audience to imagine vowels like chinchillas in a cage, always moving around each other
• He says vowels in the mouth are similarly shifting positions over time
Chain shifts vs mergers[16:38]
• He explains that chain shifts can look like the language is trying to keep things clear, but he calls that a weak force
• He notes that just as often vowels fall together and create homonyms that cause confusion
Siberian language example of lost clarity[17:21]
• He describes languages in northeast Siberia where a set of question words 5,000 years ago all began with /k/
• He compares this to English "what, where, why, when" all beginning with /w/, which makes them feel like a set
• He says the initial /k/ in those Siberian languages dropped off (as initial sounds can, like saying "was that" instead of "what's that")
• As a result, the modern forms are like "ut, er, I" (approximate shapes), no longer sharing an initial consonant and making them less clear and less learnable as a set
• He concludes that such loss of clarity happens as often as changes that improve clarity, and speakers simply grow up with it
McWhorter's view: language change is more random than biological adaptation[18:16]
• He explicitly says he feels language change is "maybe random-er" than changes in creatures

Example of "can" vs "can't" in North American English

Dawkins questions lack of differentiation[18:32]
• Dawkins says he doesn't understand why North Americans don't differentiate between "can" and "can't"
• He emphasizes that these words are exact opposites, yet are often pronounced similarly in North American speech
McWhorter's response invoking context[18:33]
• McWhorter replies that North Americans don't have to distinguish them sharply because context does so much work
• He says speakers simply "suffer" the ambiguity and manage with it

Proto-Indo-European, common ancestors, and hybridity

Dawkins challenges the notion of a single, pure Proto-Indo-European

Explanation of a single common biological ancestor[19:21]
• Dawkins states that for any two animals, such as a human and a kangaroo, there is a single individual that is their most recent common ancestor
• He vividly describes this ancestor as a mother animal, perhaps shrew-like, with two children playing in the dust, one leading to humans and one to kangaroos
Suspicion of "biology envy" among linguists[19:57]
• Dawkins suggests that linguists may envy biologists' ability to trace back to a single ancestor, calling it a form of "physics envy" adapted to biology
• He expresses doubt that there was a single Proto-Indo-European language in the same discrete way as a single biological ancestor
Proto-Indo-European as likely hybrid rather than pure source[20:40]
• Dawkins says he does not believe there was a single language that mysteriously spread over Europe and the Indian subcontinent in a pure form
• He asserts that Proto-Indo-European would have been a hybrid, just as English is a mixture of Germanic and Romance elements
• He reiterates that he suspects linguists' desire for a neat single ancestor is driven by biology envy

McWhorter's response: agreeing on hybridity and complexity

Admission of envy and agreement on mixing[20:54]
• McWhorter jokingly concedes that linguists wake up daily with that envy
• He agrees that Proto-Indo-European was undoubtedly shot through with words and grammar from other languages
• He suggests languages spoken today in the Caucasus mountains as one potential contributing group
• He notes that people in that region were constantly conquering, mating, and mixing, so language mixing "had to happen"
Multiple dialects feeding into Indo-European[21:44]
• McWhorter says recent work suggests Indo-European languages trace back to at least two different dialects of Proto-Indo-European
• He thus rejects any notion of a single perfectly uniform proto-language

Attempt to parallel language ancestry with gene ancestry

Single proto-language as an abstraction like a gene lineage[21:56]
• McWhorter suggests there would theoretically have been one Proto-Indo-European language that, though mixed, became the others
• He compares this to Dawkins's idea of a gene's life snaking through various creatures, making it hard to say exactly where it starts or ends
Question about multiple shrews contributing genes[22:33]
• McWhorter wonders whether there were other shrew-like animals that contributed genes to both the marsupial and placental lines as evolution proceeded

Dawkins clarifies ancestry and bacterial analogy

Clarification of single common ancestor concept[22:41]
• Dawkins says that in his earlier example he was only asserting that you can trace back to a single most recent common ancestor
• He acknowledges that if you go back before that, genes will indeed be coming in from everywhere
Bacteria as closer analogy to language[22:52]
• Dawkins says with bacteria the situation is quite different from animals
• He notes that in bacteria, there is frequent cut-and-paste of genetic material between genomes, making them more like languages in terms of mixing and borrowing

McWhorter on constant mixture in language history

Claim that the "pure" language existed only briefly[23:03]
• McWhorter says we can assume there has always been mixture between languages once more than one existed
• He quips that 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
• He concludes that after that, there was always hybridity as languages came into contact and mixed

Closing remarks and production credits

Conversation wrap-up between McWhorter and Dawkins

Recognition of time limit[23:23]
• McWhorter says they have reached the limit of their time and remarks that he could continue the discussion until he expired
Expression of appreciation[23:20]
• He thanks Dawkins for being there and says the conversation allowed him to live out one of his life's fantasies
• Dawkins responds with thanks

TED 2025 mention and outro by host

Reference to event context[23:50]
• Narrator states that this was Richard Dawkins in conversation with John McWhorter at TED 2025
Information on TED's curation[23:56]
• Listeners are told they can learn more about TED's curation at ted.com/curationguidelines
Credits for fact-checking, production, and mixing[24:04]
• The talk is said to have been fact-checked by the TED Research Team
• Production and editing credits are given to team members including Martha Estefanos, Oliver Freedman, Brian Greene, Lucy Little, and Tansika Sungmarnivong
• The episode is said to be mixed by Christopher "Fazy" Bogan, with additional support from Emma Taubner and Daniela Bauman
Series identification and sign-off[23:56]
• TED Talks Daily is identified as part of the TED Audio Collective
• Host Elise Hugh says she will be back tomorrow with a fresh idea for listeners' feeds and thanks them for listening

Lessons Learned

Actionable insights and wisdom you can apply to your business, career, and personal life.

1

Complex systems like languages and biological species accumulate both functional adaptations and seemingly unnecessary extravagances, which can still be products of selection (such as sexual selection) rather than mere waste.

Reflection Questions:

  • • Where in your work or life do you see features or behaviors that seem like "overkill," and could they actually be serving a persuasive or signaling function?
  • • How might recognizing the role of display and attraction (not just utility) change the way you design products, presentations, or personal branding?
  • • What is one area this week where you could intentionally add a tasteful "peacock's tail" to make your message or work more compelling to its audience?
2

Both languages and genomes carry vestiges of the past-like obsolete suffixes or pseudogenes-that no longer serve their original purpose but reveal deep history and hidden potential if reactivated.

Reflection Questions:

  • • What legacy processes, habits, or tools in your organization or life feel like "tin cans" being dragged along, and what do they reveal about your history?
  • • How could you systematically review old or dormant capabilities to see whether any could be creatively repurposed, the way an old suffix can be revived in a new word?
  • • What concrete step can you take this month to either retire a true vestige that adds friction, or deliberately revive a forgotten strength that could be useful again?
3

Group identities often sharpen differences at points of contact-whether in dialects, behaviors, or branding-as a way of reinforcing boundaries and reducing confusion about who is "us" versus "them."

Reflection Questions:

  • • In what situations do you notice yourself exaggerating differences from other groups or teams, and what underlying need is that signaling?
  • • How might awareness of this boundary-sharpening tendency help you manage conflict or collaboration across departments, cultures, or communities?
  • • Where could you experiment with softening a boundary-through shared language, rituals, or symbols-without losing the core identity that matters to your group?
4

Change can arise from both directional pressures (selection) and undirected drift, and in many human systems, drift and tolerance of imperfection play a larger role than we assume.

Reflection Questions:

  • • Which aspects of your current workflows or culture are the result of deliberate design, and which seem to have just "drifted" into place over time?
  • • How could distinguishing between drift-driven practices and intentionally selected ones improve the way you prioritize what to fix versus what to leave alone?
  • • What is one process or habit you could redesign this week with a clear selection criterion-such as clarity, resilience, or user delight-instead of letting it evolve randomly?
5

Ancestral purity-whether in languages or lineages-is mostly an illusion; real histories are full of mixing, borrowing, and hybridization that can be sources of strength and innovation.

Reflection Questions:

  • • Where in your life or organization do you cling to an idea of being "pure" or unchanged, and what might you be overlooking about the value of hybrid influences?
  • • How could you more intentionally invite useful "gene flow"-ideas, methods, or people from outside your usual circle-into a project you care about?
  • • What is one concrete partnership, cross-disciplinary conversation, or cultural influence you could seek out this month to enrich the evolution of your work?

Episode Summary - Notes by Dakota

The link between evolution and language | Richard Dawkins
0:00 0:00