The Origin Of Language.docx

6 Early Theories About the Origin of Language BY ARIKA OKRENT DECEMBER 13, 2018 ThinkStock THINKSTOCK How did language begin? Words don’t leave artifacts behind—writing began long after language did—so theories of language origins have generally been based on hunches. For centuries there had been so much fruitless speculation over the question of how language began that when the Paris Linguistic Society was founded in 1866, its bylaws included a ban on any discussions of it. The early theories are now referred to by the nicknames given to them by language scholars fed up with unsupportable just-so stories. 1. The bow-wow theory The idea that speech arose from people imitating the sounds that things make: Bow-wow, moo, baa, etc. Not likely, since very few things we talk about have characteristic sounds associated with them, and very few of our words sound anything at all like what they mean. 2. The pooh-pooh theory The idea that speech comes from the automatic vocal responses to pain, fear, surprise, or other emotions: a laugh, a shriek, a gasp. But plenty of animals make these kinds of sounds too, and they didn't end up with language. 3. The ding-dong theory The idea that speech reflects some mystical resonance or harmony connected with things in the world. Unclear how one would investigate this. 4. The yo-he-ho theory The idea that speech started with the rhythmic chants and grunts people used to coordinate their physical actions when they worked together. There's a pretty big difference between this kind of thing and what we do most of the time with language. 5. The ta-ta theory The idea that speech came from the use of tongue and mouth gestures to mimic manual gestures. For example, saying ta-ta is like waving goodbye with your tongue. But most of the things we talk about do not have characteristic gestures associated with them, much less gestures you can imitate with the tongue and mouth. 6. The la-la theory The idea that speech emerged from the sounds of inspired playfulness, love, poetic sensibility, and song. This one is lovely, and no more or less likely than any of the others. These Days About a century after banishment of the language origin question, scientists started to consider it again, but this time using evidence from paleontology about the likely brain and vocal tract features of early humans and hominids. Rather than speculate about which kinds of vocalizations gave rise to speech sounds, they consider which physical, cognitive, and social factors must first be in place in order for there to be language.

The Origin of Language (by Edward Vajda) Yesterday we discussed the gulf that separates the creative use of language by humans from the inborn signals of animals. Bees returning from their first flight out of the hive know perfectly how to perform their complex nectar dances. With humans, the precise form of language must be acquired through exposure to a speech community. Words are definitely not inborn, but the capacity to acquire and language and use it creatively seems to be inborn. Noam Chomsky calls this ability the LAD (Language Acquisition Device). Today we will ask two questions: how did this language instinct in humans originate? And how did the first language come into being? Concerning the origin of the first language, there are two main hypotheses, or beliefs. Neither can be proven or disproved given present knowledge. 1) Belief in divine creation. Many societies throughout history believed that language is the gift of the gods to humans. The most familiar is found in Genesis 2:20, which tells us that Adam gave names to all living creatures. This belief predicates that humans were created from the start with an innate capacity to use language. It can't be proven that language is as old as humans, but it is definitely true that language and human society are inseparable. Wherever humans exist language exists. Every Stone Age tribe ever encountered has a language equal to English, Latin, or Greek in terms of its expressive potential and grammatical complexity. Technologies may be complex or simple, but language is always complex. Charles Darwin noted this fact when he stated that as far as concerns language, "Shakespeare walks with the Macedonian swineherd, and Plato with the wild savage of Assam." In fact, it sometimes seems that languages spoken by preindustrial societies are much more complex grammatically than languages such as English (example: English has about seven tense forms and three noun genders; Kivunjo, a Bantu language spoken on the slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro, has 14 tenses and about 20 noun classes.) There are no primitive languages, nor are any known to have existed in the past--even among the most remote tribes of Stone Age hunter-gatherers. Nevertheless, it is impossible to prove that the first anatomically modern humans possessed creative language. It is also impossible to disprove the hypothesis that primitive languages might have existed at some point in the distant past of Homo sapiens development. 2) Natural evolution hypothesis. At some point in their evolutionary development humans acquired a more sophisticated brain which made language invention and learning possible. In other words, at some point in time humans evolved a language acquisition device, whatever this may be in real physical terms. The simple vocalizations and gestures inherited from our primate ancestors then quickly gave way to a creative system of language--perhaps within a single generation or two. /Mention the hypothesis about rewiring the visual cortex of the brain into a language area. / According to the natural evolution hypothesis, as soon as humans developed the biological, or neurological, capacity for creative language, the cultural development of some specific system of forms with meanings would have been an inevitable next step. This hypothesis cannot be proven either. Archeological evidence unearthed thus far, seems to indicate that modern humans, Homo sapiens, emerged within the last 150,000 years. By 30,000, BC all other species of humanoids seem to have been supplanted by Homo sapiens. Could the success of our species vis-a-vis other hominids be explained by its possession of superior communicative skills? Speaking people could teach, plan, organize, and convey more sophisticated information. This would have given them unparalleled advantage over hominid groups without creative language. Of course, no one knows whether other species of humanoids-Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalis -- used creative language. Perhaps they also did. In any case, Homo sapiens, "the wise human," should perhaps really be called Homo loquens, "the speaking human" because language and humans are everywhere found together, whereas wisdom among humans is much more selectively distributed. Invention hypotheses. Moving on to our second question, if humans acquired the capacity for language either by divine gift or by evolution, then exactly how might humans have devised the first language? There are several

hypotheses as to how language might have been consciously invented by humans based on a more primitive system of hominid communication. Each hypothesis is predicated on the idea that the invention of language and its gradual refinement served as a continuous impetus to additional human mental development. None of the invention hypotheses I will mention is convincing and most sane linguists agree that the origin of language is still a mystery. But the inventive, sarcastic names given these hypotheses by their critics prove that even linguists can at times be creative. First, there are four imitation hypotheses that hold that language began through some sort of human mimicry of naturally occurring sounds or movements: 1) The "ding-dong" hypothesis. Language began when humans started naming objects, actions and phenomena after a recognizable sound associated with it in real life. This hypothesis holds that the first human words were a type of verbal icon, a sign whose form is an exact image of its meaning: crash became the word for thunder, boom for explosion. Some words in language obviously did derive from imitation of natural sounds associated with some object: Chinook Indian word for heart--tun-tun, Basque word for knife: ai-ai (literally ouch-ouch). Each of these iconic words would derive from an index, a sign whose form is naturally associatied with its meaning in real space and time. The problem with this hypothesis is that onomatopoeia (imitation of sound, auditory iconicity) is a very limited part of the vocabulary of any language; imitative sounds differ from language to language: Russian: babakh=bang, bukh= thud. Even if onomotopoeia provided the first dozen or so words, then where did names for the thousands of naturally noiseless concepts such as rock, sun, sky or love come from?

The Origins of Language  Divine creation Divine Creation of Language Many societies throughout history believed that language is a gift of the gods to humans Genesis 2:20 “Adam gave names to all living creatures.” Humans were created from the start with an innate capacity to use language this capacity is complex – there are NO PRIMITIVE LANGUAGES!! Nor have there ever been – even among the most remote tribes today or of stone-age hunter-gatherers!  Natural evolution Natural Evolution Hypothesis Humans evolved a Language Acquisition Device. The simple vocalizations and gestures inherited from our primitive ancestors quickly gave way to a creative system of language – perhaps in a single generation or two due to a genetic mutation that produced advantageous results. One theory suggests this perhaps gave Homo sapiens an advantage over Homo neatherthalis, whose vocalizations were limited by a less developed vocal tract. Studies of Neanderthal skulls indicate that they were only able to produce fricative sounds, like /f/ and /v/. “Homo loquens” – the speaking human! 

Invention/imitation hypotheses:

Invention Hypotheses “Ding-Dong” – humans named objects, actions and phenomena after a recognizable sound associated with it. The first human words were a type of ICON, a sign whose form is an exact image of its meaning:Boom = explosion (English) Tun-tun= heart (Chinook Indian) Ai-ai= knife (Basque, literally “ouch-ouch”)

Invention Hypotheses Bow-wow” – human vocabulary developed from animal noises, e.g., Moo, hiss, quack, meow, etc. Onomatopoeia: lit. “Name-sound” the imitation of a sound in naming. Drawbacks: Limited part of vocabulary. Different from language to language: Russian ba-bakh = bang; bukh= thud Invention Hypotheses “Pooh-pooh” Hypothesis: humans’ first words were derived from spontaneous expressions of dislike, hunger, pain, or pleasure. Ha-ha-ha, wah-wah Problems: Very small part of any language. Differ from language to language: English ouch; Russian oi; Cherokee eee, BasqueaiMade with intake of breath, which is the opposite of normal talking. ding-dong” hypothesis 12. “pooh-pooh” hypothesis 13. “bow-wow” hypothesis 14. “ta-ta” hypothesis Necessity Theories of Language Invention Warning hypothesis 15. “yo-he-ho” hypothesis 21. Invention Hypotheses Renditions of animal sounds differ considerably from language to language, even though the animal makes essentially the same sound Dog: bow-wow; Chinese wu-wu; Jap. wan-wan; Russian gaf-gafor tyaff-tyaff
Cat: meow; Russian myaoo; Chinese mao; Japanese nya-nya Rooster: cocka-doodle-do; Japanese kokekoko; Greek kikuriku, kikikiriki PROBLEM: Where do names for natural noiseless concepts come from: rock, sun, sky, love 22. Invention Hypotheses “ta-ta” Hypothesis. Charles Darwin theorized that speech may have developed as a sort of mouth pantomime – the organs of speech were used to imitate the gestures of the hand. The first words were lip icons of hand gestures. Same problem as for onomatopoeia– different gestures in different cultures: crossing fingers for good luck in English versus Russian “fig” gesture; nodding “no” in Greek versus “yes” in English
Even Darwin himself thought this was a little implausible. 23. Necessity Hypotheses “Necessity is the mother of invention “Warning Hypothesis. Language evolved from the warning signals used by animals. Perhaps language started with a warning sound to others, that signified “HELP!” or “RUN!” to alert other members to the approach of a lumbering hairy mammoth or hungry saber-tooth tiger. Other first words could have been hunting instructions. 24. Necessity Hypotheses “yo-he-ho” Hypothesis: Language developed on the basis of human cooperation. The earliest language was chanting to stimulate collective effort, like moving a great stone to block off a cave entrance from roving carnivores, or repeating s war phrase over and over to inflame the fighting spirit. Poetry and song came to us this way – and we still have some “yo-he-ho” ones: the Volga Boat Song, Military drill chanting, the Seven Dwarves working song! 27. Other Sources of LanguageMore on the divine source: Psammetichus and the babies raised by goats. Ba-ba? King James of Scotland and the Hebrew-speaking babies. But empirical evidence from children raised without exposure to language shows that these children grow up with no language at all. Exposure to language before the age of 7 is critical to language development. This is called The Critical Period for language acquisition 43. ReferencesYule, George. 2010. The Study of Language. 4th Edition. Vajda, Edward. Undated Manuscript. The Origin of Language. Fromkin, et. al. 2009. An Introduction to Language.