The Origins of Language (Dr. C.
George Boeree)
It is an
intriguing question, to which we may never have a complete answer: How did we get from animal vocalization
(barks, howls, calls...) to human language?
Animals often make
use of signs, which point to what they represent, but they don’t use symbols,
which are arbitrary and conventional.
Examples of signs include sniffles as a sign of an on-coming cold,
clouds as a sign of rain, or a scent as a sign of territory. Symbols include things like the words we
use. Dog, Hund, chien, cane, perro --
these are symbols that refer to the creature so named, yet each one contains
nothing in it that in anyway indicates that creature.
In addition,
language is a system of symbols, with several levels of organization, at least
phonetics (the sounds), syntax (the grammar), and semantics (the meanings).
So when did
language begin? At the very beginnings
of the genus Homo, perhaps 4 or 5 million years ago? Or with the advent of modern man, Cro-Magnon,
some 125,000 years ago? Did the Neanderthal
speak? He had a brain that was larger
than ours, but his voice box seems to be higher in his throat, like that of the
apes. We don’t know.
There are many
theories about the origins of language. Many
of these have traditional amusing names (invented by Max Müller and George
Romanes a century ago), and I will create a couple more where needed.
1.
The mama theory.
Language began with the easiest syllables attached to the most
significant objects.
2. The ta-ta theory. Sir Richard Paget, influenced by Darwin,
believed that body movement preceded language.
Language began as an unconscious vocal imitation of these movements --
like the way a child’s mouth will move when they use scissors, or my tongue
sticks out when I try to play the guitar.
This evolved into the popular idea that language may have derived from
gestures.
3. The bow-wow theory. Language began as imitations of natural
sounds -- moo, choo-choo, crash, clang, buzz, bang, meow... This is more technically referred to as
onomatopoeia or echoism.
4. The pooh-pooh theory. Language began with interjections,
instinctive emotive cries such as oh! for surprise and ouch! for pain.
5. The ding-dong theory. Some people, including the famous linguist
Max Muller, have pointed out that there is a rather mysterious correspondence
between sounds and meanings. Small,
sharp, high things tend to have words with high front vowels in many languages,
while big, round, low things tend to have round back vowels! Compare itsy bitsy teeny weeny with moon, for
example. This is often referred to as
sound symbolism.
6. The yo-he-ho theory. Language began as rhythmic chants, perhaps
ultimately from the grunts of heavy work (heave-ho!). The linguist A. S. Diamond suggests that
these were perhaps calls for assistance or cooperation accompanied by
appropriate gestures. This may relate
yo-he-ho to the ding-dong theory, as in such words as cut, break, crush, strike...
7. The sing-song theory. Danish linguist Jesperson suggested that
language comes out of play, laughter, cooing, courtship, emotional mutterings
and the like. He even suggests that,
contrary to other theories, perhaps some of our first words were actually long
and musical, rather than the short grunts many assume we started with.
8. The hey you! theory. A linguist by the name of Revesz suggested
that we have always needed interpersonal contact, and that language began as
sounds to signal both identity (here I am!) and belonging (I’m with you!). We may also cry out in fear, anger, or hurt
(help me!). This is more commonly called
the contact theory.
9. The hocus pocus theory. My own contribution to these is the idea that
language may have had some roots in a sort of magical or religious aspect of
our ancestors' lives. Perhaps we began
by calling out to game animals with magical sounds, which became their names.
10. The eureka! theory. And finally, perhaps language was consciously
invented. Perhaps some ancestor had the
idea of assigning arbitrary sounds to mean certain things. Clearly, once the idea was had, it would
catch on like wild-fire!
Another issue is
how often language came into being (or was invented). Perhaps it was invented once, by our earliest
ancestors -- perhaps the first who had whatever genetic and physiological
properties needed to make complex sounds and organize them into strings. This is called monogenesis. Or perhaps it was invented many times --
polygenesis -- by many people.
We can try to
reconstruct earlier forms of language, but we can only go so far before cycles
of change obliterate any possibility of reconstruction. Many say we can only go back perhaps 10,000
years before the trail goes cold. So
perhaps we will simply never know.
Perhaps the biggest
debate among linguists and others interested in the origins of language is
whether we can account for language using only the basic mechanisms of
learning, or if we need to postulate some special built-in language-readiness. The learning-only people (for example, B. F.
Skinner) say that childhood conditioning, or maybe modeling, can account for
the complexity of language. The
language-acquisition-device (LAD) people (such as Chomsky and Pinker) say that
the ease and speed with which children learn language requires something more.
The debate is real
only for those people who prefer to take one or the other of these extreme
views. It seems very clear to most that
neither is the answer. Is there some
special neural mechanism for language?
Not in the sense of a LAD.
In most mammals,
both hemispheres looked very much alike.
Somewhere in humanity's early years, a few people possibly inherited a
mutation that left one hemisphere with a limited capacity. Instead of neural connections going in every
direction, they tended to be organized more linearly. The left hemisphere
couldn't relate to things in the usual full-blown multidimensional way. But -- surprise! -- that same diminished
capacity proved to be very good are ordering things linearly. And that's exactly what language needs: The ability to convert fully dimensional
events into linear sequences of sounds, and vice versa.
No comments:
Post a Comment