Answer

I think there is both a difference and a similarity.
First, the similarity. Human languages, as has been accepted since Chomsky, are also based on an underlying infrastructure found in each of us. In that sense, the formation of a language is discovery rather than constitution. The differences between languages exist within that framework, just as there are several kinds of democracy, and I am not sure that each of them has a corresponding ideal. These are shades of the appearance / realization of the ideal in the world.
As for the difference, I do not think that many kinds of languages were tried and only one caught on and succeeded. My assumption is that the development of a language, once it is created and begins to be used in some community, is almost deterministic. Therefore, any such beginning would have developed and produced a language. By contrast, genres of artistic creation arise in great numbers all the time, and only a few of them catch on and become recognized and widespread genres. Therefore I think that the ones that do catch on indicate that they fit something that exists, either within us or outside us—a correlate of the genre. By contrast, a language catches on simply because it is there. If there had been a different language, it likely would also have caught on. Therefore I assume that there is no correlate in reality there (or in us).