To what degree do we value the short term over the long term? The answer varies not only from individual to individual but also from society to society. Hunter-gatherers, for instance, value the short term. Perishable food cannot be stored for future use and, in any case, is not normally obtained in large enough amounts to make storage worthwhile. If a hunter gets more meat than his family can consume, he'll give it away to others in the local band.
There are exceptions, especially at northern latitudes. Meat can be stored in caches during winter and in cold lake waters during summer. With limited opportunities for food gathering, women specialize in technologies that need more cognitive input and longer-term thinking, like garment making, needlework, weaving, leatherworking, pottery, and use of kilns. Finally, men hunt over longer distances and therefore plan over the longer term. Northern hunting peoples thus broke free of the short-term mental straitjacket imposed by hunting and gathering. In time, their descendants would spread south and rise to the challenges of social complexity (Frost 2019).
Those northern hunting peoples were better able to exploit the opportunities created by farming, but the transition from one lifestyle to the other was still far from easy. Farming requires not only longer-term thinking but also less monotony avoidance and higher thresholds for expression of personal violence. In recent times, hunter-gatherers usually refused offers to be settled on farms. They saw farming as akin to slavery.
The change in mindset didn't end with the transition to farming. There were different types of farming, and some required longer-term investment than others. Those types generated stronger selection for future orientation.
Language as a mirror of cultural evolution
Galor et al. (2018) argue that language is a mirror of cultural evolution. It can show a society’s degree of commitment to a long-term mindset, as well as other psychological traits.
The periphrastic future tense
The authors studied the relationship between future orientation and forms of the future tense that express intention and obligation, rather than simply prediction:
Languages differ in the structure of their future tense. In particular, linguists distinguish between languages that are characterized by an inflectional versus periphrastic future tense [...]. Inflectional future tense is associated with verbs that display morphological variation (i.e., a change in the verb form that is associated with the future tense). In contrast, periphrastic future tense is characterized by roundabout or discursive phrases, such as `will', `shall', `want to', `going to' in the English language [...] (Galor et al. 2018, p. 6)
[U]nlike the inflectional future tense, the periphrastic future tense is formed by terms that express a desire, an intention, an obligation, a commitment as well as a movement towards a goal. In particular, in the English language, "shall has developed from a main verb meaning 'to owe', will from a main verb meaning 'to want', and the source of be going to is still transparent" [...]. Moreover, "intention and prediction are most commonly expressed by the periphrastic future, while the synthetic one is more common in generic statements, concessives, and suppositions" [...]. Inflectional futures "also appear systematically (often obligatorily) in sentences which express clear predictions about the future (which are independent of human intentions and planning), whereas less grammaticalized constructions [i.e., periphrastic] often tend to be predominantly used in talk of plans and intentions - a fact which is explainable from the diachronic sources of future tenses" [...] (Galor et al. 2018, p. 6)
Galor et al. (2018, p. 16) used pre-1500 AD data to estimate the return on agricultural investment ("crop return") in the homeland of a language’s speakers. They found a positive correlation between this return on investment and the existence of a periphrastic future tense. They concluded that "a one standard deviation increase in crop return in the language's contemporary homeland is associated with a 6 percentage points increase in the probability that the language is characterized by a periphrastic future tense."
Using the World Values Survey, the authors also found a positive correlation between the existence of a periphrastic future tense and future orientation. The correlation held true both for the people of the world as a whole and for Old World peoples who speak languages originating in the Old World (Galor et al. 2018, p. 23).
Interestingly, the return on agricultural investment did not correlate with other linguistic characteristics, like the existence of the past tense or the perfect tense, the existence of possessive classifications, the existence of coding for evidentiality, the number of consonants, and the number of colors (Galor et al. 2018, pp. 18-19).
Grammatical gender
The authors also looked into the relationship between grammatical gender and the sexual division of labor in a language's homeland:
Further, consider ancient civilizations that had been characterized by a sexual division of labor and consequently by the existence of gender bias. Linguistic traits that had fortified the existing gender biases have plausibly emerged and persisted in these societies over time. In particular, geographical characteristics that had been associated with the adoption of agricultural technology that had contributed to a gender gap in productivity, and thus to the emergence of distinct gender roles in society (e.g., the suitability of land for the usage of the plow […]), may have fostered the emergence and the prevalence of sex-based grammatical gender in the course of human history. (Galor et al. 2018, p. 2)
Galor et al (2018, p. 24) found a negative correlation between grammatical gender and “plow negative” crops (i.e., crops not requiring use of the plow and, hence, requiring less male participation). A one standard deviation increase in the potential caloric yield of plow negative crops was associated with a 13 percentage point decrease in the probability that the language has grammatical gender. The correlation was reversed in the case of all crops, the caloric yield now being associated with a 17 percentage point increase in the probability that the language has grammatical gender.
Politeness distinctions in pronouns
Finally, Galor et al. (2018) looked into the relationship between politeness distinctions in pronouns and ecological diversity, which they related to the emergence of hierarchical societies.
Linguistic traits that had reinforced existing hierarchical structures and cultural norms had conceivably emerged and persisted in these stratified societies in the course of human history. In particular, politeness distinctions in pronouns (e.g., the differential use of "tu" and "usted" in the Spanish language, "Du" and "Sie" in German, and "tu" and "vous" in French) had conceivably appeared and endured in hierarchical societies. Thus, geographical characteristics, such as ecological diversity that had been conducive to the emergence of hierarchical societies (Fenske, 2014), may have contributed to the emergence of politeness distinctions. (Galor et al. 2018, p. 2)
Galor et al. (2018, p. 32) found a significant relationship between politeness distinctions and ecological diversity in a language's homeland. A one standard deviation increase in ecological diversity corresponded to a 15 percentage point increase in the probability that the language has politeness distinctions.
I'm skeptical about the last finding. Is ecological diversity conducive to hierarchical societies? The authors refer to a study that mostly uses African data. More to the point, the study seeks to link ecological diversity to centralized states. Centralization of state power and social hierarchization are not the same thing. Japan, for instance, had a weak central state for much of its history and yet was very hierarchical, as seen in the politeness distinctions of the Japanese language.
Conclusion
Although the authors refer to work by L.L. Cavalli-Sforza, Peter Richerson, and Robert Boyd on gene-culture coevolution, they avoid discussing the possibility that selection for future orientation, gender specialization, and hierarchical politeness has influenced not only culture and language but also human biology. The coevolution they propose is simply between culture and language. It can be summed up as follows:
- Certain patterns of mind and behavior have been favored to varying degrees in different societies.
- These cultural patterns are transposed into language.
- Language then reinforces those cultural patterns: "In light of the apparent coevolution of cultural and linguistic characteristics in the course of human history, emerging linguistic traits have conceivably reinforced the persistent effect of cultural factors on the process of development" (Galor et al. 2018, p. 1).
Language is not a passive mirror of culture. It can also act upon culture. For instance, the way we perceive the future, and its relative importance to us, may be shaped by the way we speak. This is of course the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. In a farming society, the periphrastic future tense might make it easier to envision farming methods and technologies that pay off over the longer term. Similar arguments have been made for grammatical gender and politeness distinctions. The way we speak influences our thoughts and behavior.
Again, the authors leave it to the reader to go one step farther: patterns of mind and behavior may influence the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool.
References
Fenske, J. (2014). Ecology, trade, and states in pre-colonial Africa. Journal of the European Economic Association 12(3): 612-640.
https://www.eeassoc.org/doc/paper/20130704_190013_FENSKE.PDF
Frost, P. (2019). The Original Industrial Revolution. Did Cold Winters Select for Cognitive Ability? Psych 1(1): 166-181
https://doi.org/10.3390/psych1010012
Galor, O., O. Özak, and A. Sarid. (2018). Geographical Roots of the Coevolution of Cultural and Linguistic Traits (November 7, 2018). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3284239 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3284239
Preis, T., H.S. Moat, H.E. Stanley, and S.R. Bishop. (2012). Quantifying the advantage of looking forward. Scientific Reports 2: 350
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep00350
