Origins of language_课件
语言学：Chapter 1 The origins of language
Chapter 1 The origins of language
Lecturer: CAI, Jilang
1
I have never met a person who is not interested in language. ——Steven Pinker, The Language Instinct
赫尔德在他的论文里批驳了神创语言的观点，他指出语言的不完 美性绝不能让我们相信语言是出自完美的上帝之手。他肯定上帝的 存在和万能，但他却指出上帝创造了人的心智，而不是人的语言。 人的语言是由人类的心智创造的。
17
The natural-sound source
‘bow-wow‟ theory: primitive words could have been imitationsof the natural sounds which early men and women heard around them. onomatopoeic Problem: soundless & abstract things; a language cannot be only a set of words used as „names‟ for things. natural cries of emotion (The pooh-pooh theory) Problem: sudden intakes of breath (interjections) vs. exhaled breath (normal language). „yo-he-ho‟theory: a set of grunts, groans and curses involved in physical effort Problem: It doesnot, however, answer our question regarding the origins of the sounds produced.
the origin of language
The origin of languages
The evolution theory
The evolution theory maintains
that language developed in the course of the evolution of the human species. The development of language is closely related to the evolutionary development of the speech organs, especially the oral cavity and the pharyngeal cavity.
Members:刘晓茹 靳晓华 张先慧 杨桂智 赖英韶 郭 娇
WARMWARM-UP QUESTIONS
How many languages can you speak? Where do you think language came from? What is possibly the first language?
The origin of languages
origins_of_language(引用)
选自原文/view/e86571fdf61fb7360b4c65af.htmlThe origins of language& Properties of human language Jespersen’s proposal that human language originated while humans were actually enjoying themselves is one of the more endearing speculations concerning the origins of language. It remains, however, a speculation. We do know that spoken language developed well before written language. We simply do not know how language originated.语言如何进化类语言具有复杂多变的递归结构，漫长的物种进化过程中唯独人类精通语言。
语言的进化始于大约两百万年前的“更新世时期”，语言在当时作为一种认知适应对于人类应对自然界带给人类的挑战（如动物掠食与森林毁坏）有很大帮助。
人类进化过程中学习与文化因素形成一种选择压力促使人际交流语法化，人际交流语法化引发大脑容量增加，然而，最初的语言进化与基因无关。
学习与文化压力也使交流的媒介依次变为手语模式、表情模式与语言模式。
交流媒介的逐渐变化最终导致了FOXP2 基因突变，FOXP2 基因突变让智人具有了自主的言语能力。
与地球上其它的人科动物相比，人类的语言能力使人类在进化中具有明显的优势。
关键词：语言，语法化，沟通媒介。
引用自——分类号：B84-069 心理学报2007，39（3）：415~430Acta Psychologica Sinica415How Language EvolvedMichael C. CorballisUniversity of Auckland1. In most religions, there appears to be divine source who provides humans with language. Children living without access to human speech in their early years grow up with no language at all. If human language did emanate from a divine source, we have no way of reconstructing that original language.2. The suggestion is that primitive words could have been imitations of the natural sounds which early men and women heard around them. (1) the “bow-wow theory” of language origin. Words that sound similar to the noises they describe are examples of onomatopoeia. (2)Original sounds of language may have come fromnatural cries of emotion such as pain, anger and joy. (3)Another proposal involving natural sounds has been called the “yo-he-you”theory. It is the that sounds of a person involved in physical effort could be the source of our language, especially when that physical effort involved several people and the interaction had to be coordinated.3. The social interaction source This proposal places the development of human language in a social text. Human sounds had some principled use within the life ans social interaction of early human group. But it does not answer our question regarding the origins of the sounds produced.4. The physical adaption source Teeth, lips, mouth, tongue, nose, larynx(voice box), pharynx.5. The tool-making source (1) Manual gestures may have been a precursor of language. (2) Human had developed preferential right-handedness. (3) It is evidence of a brain at work. (4) The human brain is not only large relative to human body size, it is also lateralized. This activity may indeed have been a crucial stage in the development of language, but what it lacks is any structural organization.6. The genetic source This seems to indicate that human offspring are born witha special capacity for language. It is innate, no other creature seems to have it, and it isn’t tied to a specific variety of language.请参考原文/view/e86571fdf61fb7360b4c65af.html。
英语语言学课件Chapter 1 The Origins of Language-PPT精选文档
The Nห้องสมุดไป่ตู้tural-sound Source
• Primitive words could have been imitations of the natural sounds which early men and women heard around them • Modern Ls have some words with pronunciations which seem to ‘echo’ naturally occurring sounds could be used to support this theory (p2) Onomatopoeic • How about soundless, abstract entities in a L? • L is only a set of words which are used as “names” for entities?
The Oral-gesture Source
• A set of physical gestures was developed as a means of communication • A set of gestures, specifically involving the mouth, developed, in which the movements of the tongue, lips and so on were recognized according to patterns of movement similar to physical gestures • We can use mime or specific gestures for a variety of communicative purposes, hard to visualize the actual “oral” aspect which would mirror many such gestures. • Extremely large number of linguistic messages which would appear to defy transmission via this type of gesturing
《语言起源和发展》课件
Part
06
语言学的研究方法
传统语言学研究方法
文献研究
通过对历史文献的收集、 整理和分析，研究语言的 起源、演变和结构特点。
比较语言学
比较不同语言的词汇、语 法和语音，探究语言的共 性和差异，以及语言之间 的亲缘关系。
历史语言学
研究语言的历史演变，通 过分析语音、词汇和语法 的变化，揭示语言的演化 过程。
02
语言的产生
语言的产生背景
人类社会的形成
语言产生于人类社会形成过程中 ，为了满足沟通和协作的需要， 人们开始使用声音和符号来表达 思想和传递信息。
劳动和交流的推动
在劳动和交流过程中，人们逐渐 形成了特定的语音和符号，用来 表示事物、概念和关系。
遗传和进化的影响
人类的基因组中存在与语言相关 的基因，这些基因在语言产生过 程中发挥了重要作用。
代表人物
柏拉图、亚里士多德等古希腊哲学家以及一些宗教传统。
劳动创造说
总结词
认为语言是由人类劳动和实际需求所驱动的观点。
详细描述
劳动创造说认为，语言是在人类劳动和实际需求的过程中逐渐发展起来的。这种观点强调，语言是为了满足人类沟通 和协作的需要而产生的，而不是由神或超自然力量所赐予。
代表人物
法国语言学家索绪尔、美国语言学家萨丕尔等。
语言是文化传承的重要工具。通过语言，人们能够传 递和保存文化信息，使得文化和传统得以延续。
语言对思维方式、认知方式和行为方式等方面也有影 响。不同的语言具有不同的特点和表达方式，这些差
异会影响人们对世界的认知和理解。
语言的差异也会导致文化差异。不同语言的词汇、语 法和表达方式等都有其独特的文化内涵，这些差异反
语言的出现使得人类能够更加高效地进行交流和协作，促 进了人类社会的进步和发展。
the origin of language
Four stages
Idealistic theory
The God’s saying
Old testament ·genesis : The God created every field ,and
every fowl of the air; and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them, and whatever Adam called them, that was their name thereof.”
Embryonic stage
Australopithecus(南方古猿) In the period of Australopithecus, they invented the man-
made tools, marking the immature thinking stage to the mature stage of thought.
The result
The God said :“let us go down, and confound their language, so they can not understand each other.”
你好
hello
こんにちは
boujour
안녕하세요
Materialist theory
Immature language stage
Sinanthropus pekinensis (北京猿人) At this stage, as the further improvement of tools,
Sinanthropus could also use fire ,and their brain capacity has developed. Segmented words started to appear in great quantities, and they could commuห้องสมุดไป่ตู้icate with each other by gestures and simple words.
Origin of Language
“bow-wow” theory
The
The
“pooh-pooh” theory “yo-he-ho” theory
2 The Invention Theory
Bow-wow theory: imitate the natural sounds of the animal calls in the wild environment Pooh-pooh theory: instinctive sounds of pain, anger and joy as interjections Yo-he-ho theory: rhythmic sounds produced by primitive people when working together.
One thing we can say for certain is that language evolves within specific historical, social and cultural contexts.
The Evolutionary Theory
—— the result of physical and psychological development
3 The Evolutionary Theory
There is certain relationship between the development of language and the evolutionary development of the human species. 1. Children are born with both thought and language. 2. The development of the physical apparatus for speech. 3. It is labor that created the necessity for language.
The Origin of Language 语言学
Part2：The origin of language
Four stages of the origin
Fore-language stage Embryonic stage Immature language stage The mature stage
Part2：The origin of language
Part2：The origin of language
Immature language stage
Sinanthropus pekinensis (北京猿人) At this stage, as the further improvement of tools, Sinanthropus could also use fire ,and their brain capacity has developed. Segmented words started to appear in great quantities, and they could communicate with each other by gestures and simple words.
Part1：Lead in
2.TWO different points of view
Theories about the origin of language differ in regard to their basic assumptions about what language is. 1. Language is so complex that it cannot simply appearing from nothing in its final form. These theories can be called continuity-based theories. 2. Language is so unique that it must have appeared suddenly in the transition from pre-hominids to early man. These theories can be called discontinuity-based. Similarly, theories based on Chomsky's generative view of language see language mostly as an innate faculty that is largely genetically encoded, whereas functionalist theories see it as a system that is largely cultural, learned through social interaction.
英语语言学课件Chapter 1 The Origins of Languag
.
5
Glossogenetics
• Focuses mainly on the biological basis of the formation and development of human language
• We can use mime or specific gestures for a variety of communicative purposes, hard to visualize the actual “oral” aspect which would mirror many such gestures.
• Human sounds may have some principled use within the social life or early human groups. Does not answer the origins of sounds since Apes and other primates have grunts and social calls.
• “you-heave-ho” theory: the sounds of a person involved in physical effort could be the source of L, esp when several people involved
• The appeal of this theory is that it places the development of L in some social context
The origins of language
The suspicion does not appear improbable that the progenitors of man,either the males or females,or both sexes,before they had acquired the power of expressing their mutual love in articulate language,endeavoured to charm each other with musical notes and rhythm.Darwin(1871)In Charles Darwin’s vision of the origins of language,early humans had already developed musical ability prior to language and were using it“to charm each other.”This may not match the typical image that most of us have of our early ancestors as rather rough characters wearing animal skins and not very charming,but it is an interesting speculation about how language may have originated.It remains,however,a speculation.We simply don’t know how language originated.We do know that the ability to produce sound and simple vocal patterning(a hum versus a grunt,for example)appears to be in an ancient part of the brain that we share with all vertebrates,including fish,frogs,birds and other mammals.But that isn’t human language.We suspect that some type of spoken language must have developed between100,000and50,000years ago,well before written language(about5,000years ago).Yet,among the traces of earlier periods of life on earth,we never find any direct evidence or artifacts relating to the speech of our distant ancestors that might tell us how language was back in the early stages.Perhaps because of this absence of direct physical evidence,there has been no shortage of speculation about the origins ofhuman speech.2The Study of LanguageThe divine sourceIn the biblical tradition,as described in the book of Genesis,God created Adam and“whatsoever Adam called every living creature,that was the name thereof.”Alternatively,following a Hindu tradition,language came from Sarasvati,wife ofBrahma,creator of the universe.In most religions,there appears to be a divine sourcewho provides humans with language.In an attempt to rediscover this original divinelanguage,a few experiments have been carried out,with rather conflicting results.Thebasic hypothesis seems to have been that,if human infants were allowed to grow upwithout hearing any language around them,then they would spontaneously beginusing the original God-given language.The Greek writer Herodotus reported the story of an Egyptian pharaoh namedPsammetichus(or Psamtik)who tried the experiment with two newborn babies morethan2,500years ago.After two years of isolation except for the company of goats and amute shepherd,the children were reported to have spontaneously uttered,not anEgyptian word,but something that was identified as the Phrygian word bekos,meaning“bread.”The pharaoh concluded that Phrygian,an older language spoken in part of whatis modern Turkey,must be the original language.That seems very unlikely.The childrenmay not have picked up this“word”from any human source,but as several commenta-tors have pointed out,they must have heard what the goats were saying.(First removethe-kos ending,which was added in the Greek version of the story,then pronounce be-as you would the English word bed without-d at the end.Can you hear a goat?)King James the Fourth of Scotland carried out a similar experiment around the year1500and the children were reported to have spontaneously started speaking Hebrew,confirming the King’s belief that Hebrew had indeed been the language of the Garden ofEden.It is unfortunate that all other cases of children who have been discovered living inisolation,without coming into contact with human speech,tend not to confirm theresults of these types of divine-source experiments.Very young children living withoutaccess to human language in their early years grow up with no language at all.(We willconsider the case of one such child later in Chapter12.)If human language did emanatefrom a divine source,we have no way of reconstructing that original language,especiallygiven the events in a place called Babel,“because the Lord did there confound thelanguage of all the earth,”as described in the book of Genesis in the Bible(11:9). The natural sound sourceA quite different view of the beginnings of language is based on the concept of naturalsounds.The basic idea is that primitive words could have been imitations of theThe origins of language3natural sounds which early men and women heard around them.When an objectflewby,making a CAW-CAW sound,the early human tried to imitate the sound and used it torefer to the thing associated with the sound.And when anotherflying creature made aCOO-COO sound,that natural sound was adopted to refer to that kind of object.The factthat all modern languages have some words with pronunciations that seem to echonaturally occurring sounds could be used to support this theory.In English,in additionto cuckoo,we have splash,bang,boom,rattle,buzz,hiss,screech,and forms such asbow-wow.In fact,this type of view has been called the“bow-wow theory”of languageorigin.Words that sound similar to the noises they describe are examples of onoma-topeia.While it is true that a number of words in any language are onomatopoeic,it ishard to see how most of the soundless things as well as abstract concepts in our worldcould have been referred to in a language that simply echoed natural sounds.We mightalso be rather skeptical about a view that seems to assume that a language is only a setof words used as“names”for things.It has also been suggested that the original sounds of language may have come fromnatural cries of emotion such as pain,anger and joy.By this route,presumably,Ouch!came to have its painful connotations.But Ouch!and other interjections such as Ah!,Ooh!,Wow!or Yuck!,are usually produced with sudden intakes of breath,which is theopposite of ordinary talk.We normally produce spoken language on exhaled breath.Basically,the expressive noises people make in emotional reactions contain soundsthat are not otherwise used in speech production and consequently would seem to berather unlikely candidates as source sounds for language.The social interaction sourceAnother proposal involving natural sounds has been called the“yo-he-ho”theory.Theidea is that the sounds of a person involved in physical effort could be the source of ourlanguage,especially when that physical effort involved several people and the inter-action had to be coordinated.So,a group of early humans might develop a set of hums,grunts,groans and curses that were used when they were lifting and carrying large bitsof trees or lifeless hairy mammoths.The appeal of this proposal is that it places the development of human language in asocial context.Early people must have lived in groups,if only because larger groupsoffered better protection from attack.Groups are necessarily social organizations and,to maintain those organizations,some form of communication is required,even if it isjust grunts and curses.So,human sounds,however they were produced,must havehad some principled use within the life and social interaction of early human groups.This is an important idea that may relate to the uses of humanly produced sounds.Itdoes not,however,answer our question regarding the origins of the sounds produced.4The Study of LanguageApes and other primates live in social groups and use grunts and social calls,but theydo not seem to have developed the capacity for speech.The physical adaptation sourceInstead of looking at types of sounds as the source of human speech,we can look at thetypes of physical features humans possess,especially those that are distinct from othercreatures,which may have been able to support speech production.We can start withthe observation that,at some early stage,our ancestors made a very significanttransition to an upright posture,with bipedal(on two feet)locomotion,and a revisedrole for the front limbs.Some effects of this type of change can be seen in physical differences between theskull of a gorilla and that of a Neanderthal man from around60,000years ago.Thereconstructed vocal tract of a Neanderthal suggests that some consonant-like sounddistinctions would have been possible.We have to wait until about35,000years agofor features in reconstructions of fossilized skeletal structures that begin to resemblethose of modern humans.In the study of evolutionary development,there are certainphysical features,best thought of as partial adaptations,which appear to be relevantfor speech.They are streamlined versions of features found in other primates.Bythemselves,such features would not necessarily lead to speech production,but theyare good clues that a creature possessing such features probably has the capacity forspeech.Teeth,lips,mouth,larynx and pharynxHuman teeth are upright,not slanting outwards like those of apes,and they areroughly even in height.Such characteristics are not very useful for ripping or tearingfood and seem better adapted for grinding and chewing.They are also very helpful inmaking sounds such as f or v.Human lips have much more intricate muscle interlacingthan is found in other primates and their resultingflexibility certainly helps in makingsounds like p or b.The human mouth is relatively small compared to other primates,can be opened and closed rapidly,and contains a smaller,thicker and more musculartongue which can be used to shape a wide variety of sounds inside the oral cavity.Inaddition,unlike other primates,humans can close off the airway through the nose tocreate more air pressure in the mouth.The overall effect of these small differencestaken together is a face with more intricate muscle interlacing in the lips and mouth,capable of a wider range of shapes and a more rapid and powerful delivery of soundsproduced through these different shapes.The origins of language5The human larynx or“voice box”(containing the vocal folds or vocal cords)differssignificantly in position from the larynx of other primates such as monkeys.In thecourse of human physical development,the assumption of an upright posture movedthe head more directly above the spinal column and the larynx dropped to a lowerposition.This created a longer cavity called the pharynx,above the vocal folds,whichacts as a resonator for increased range and clarity of the sounds produced via thelarynx and the vocal tract.One unfortunate consequence of this development is thatthe lower position of the human larynx makes it much more possible for the human tochoke on pieces of food.Monkeys may not be able to use their larynx to producespeech sounds,but they do not suffer from the problem of getting food stuck in theirwindpipe.In evolutionary terms,there must have been a big advantage in getting thisextra vocal power(i.e.a larger range of sound distinctions)to outweigh the potentialdisadvantage from an increased risk of choking to death.The tool-making sourceIn the physical adaptation view,one function(producing speech sounds)must havebeen superimposed on existing anatomical features(teeth,lips)previously used for otherpurposes(chewing,sucking).A similar development is believed to have taken place withhuman hands and some believe that manual gestures may have been a precursor oflanguage.By about two million years ago,there is evidence that humans had developedpreferential right-handedness and had become capable of making stone tools.Woodtools and composite tools eventually followed.Tool-making,or the outcome of manip-ulating objects and changing them using both hands,is evidence of a brain at work.The human brain is not only large relative to human body size,it is also lateralized,that is,it has specialized functions in each of the two hemispheres.(More details arepresented in Chapter12.)Those functions that control the motor movements involved incomplex vocalization(speaking)and object manipulation(making or using tools)arevery close to each other in the left hemisphere of the brain.It may be that there was anevolutionary connection between the language-using and tool-using abilities of humansand that both were involved in the development of the speaking brain.Most of the otherspeculative proposals concerning the origins of speech seem to be based on a picture ofhumans producing single noises to indicate objects in their environment.This activitymay indeed have been a crucial stage in the development of language,but what it lacks isany structural organization.All languages,including sign language,require the organiz-ing and combining of sounds or signs in specific arrangements.We seem to havedeveloped a part of our brain that specializes in making these arrangements.If we think in terms of the most basic process involved in primitive tool-making,it isnot enough to be able to grasp one rock(make one sound);the human must also be able6The Study of Languageto bring another rock(other sounds)into proper contact with thefirst in order to developa tool.In terms of language structure,the human may havefirst developed a namingability by producing a specific and consistent noise(e.g.bEEr)for a specific object.Thecrucial additional step was to bring another specific noise(e.g.gOOd)into combinationwith thefirst to build a complex message(bEEr gOOd).Several thousand years ofdevelopment later,humans have honed this message-building capacity to a pointwhere,on Saturdays,watching a football game,they can drink a sustaining beverageand proclaim This beer is good.As far as we know,other primates are not doing this. The genetic sourceWe can think of the human baby in itsfirst few years as a living example of some ofthese physical changes taking place.At birth,the baby’s brain is only a quarter of itseventual weight and the larynx is much higher in the throat,allowing babies,likechimpanzees,to breathe and drink at the same time.In a relatively short period of time,the larynx descends,the brain develops,the child assumes an upright posture andstarts walking and talking.This almost automatic set of developments and the complexity of the young child’slanguage have led some scholars to look for something more powerful than smallphysical adaptations of the species over time as the source of language.Even childrenwho are born deaf(and do not develop speech)becomefluent sign language users,given appropriate circumstances,very early in life.This seems to indicate that humanoffspring are born with a special capacity for language.It is innate,no other creatureseems to have it,and it isn’t tied to a specific variety of language.Is it possible that thislanguage capacity is genetically hard-wired in the newborn human?As a solution to the puzzle of the origins of language,this innateness hypothesiswould seem to point to something in human genetics,possibly a crucial mutation,as thesource.This would not have been a gradual change,but something that happened ratherquickly.We are not sure when this proposed genetic change might have taken place orhow it might relate to the physical adaptations described earlier.However,as weconsider this hypothesis,wefind our speculations about the origins of language movingaway from fossil evidence or the physical source of basic human sounds towardanalogies with how computers work(e.g.being pre-programmed or hard-wired)andconcepts taken from the study of genetics.The investigation of the origins of languagethen turns into a search for the special“language gene”that only humans possess.If we are indeed the only creatures with this special capacity for language,then will itbe completely impossible for any other creature to produce or understand language?We’ll try to answer that question in Chapter2.。
The Origin of Language 语言学
Class 4 Group 4 Vicky Eric Sofia Evelyn Tiffany Jacky Silvia Tammy
OUT LINE
Lead in The origin of language
A. Idealistic theory(唯心主义学说) B. Materialistic theory(唯物主义学说) 1. Labor evolution theory 2. Four stages of the theory
Part1：Lead in
1. What makes the origin so hard to find？
The origin of language in the human species has been the topic of scholarly discussions for several centuries. In spite of this, there is no consensus on the ultimate origin or age of human language. One problem makes the topic difficult to study: the lack of direct evidence.
Part2：The origin of language
The mature stage
homo sapiens(智人)
Pronunciation organ has evolved well, people can be able to speak out complex syllables ,words and sentences.
英语语言学概论The Origin of Language
Thank yБайду номын сангаасu for your attention !
4. Evolution theory
• In 1876, Engels published the book Dialetics of Nature, which involved the origin of language.
• In the book, Engels pointed out that language are formed to satisfy the need of communication in the process of collective labour, and are created.
1. Creation (Divine Origin)
1. Creation (Divine Origin)
2. Invention
• With the advancement of science and the rise of rationalism, more and more people began to support the Invention theory, which means that language was invented by human themselves. But scholars differ in the idea of how humans exactly invented language.
• Labour created man as well as man’s language in the meantime. That is to say, labour created the physiological, physical, thinking and social premise which were the foundation of the emergence of language.
1. The origins of language
1. The origins of language1.1 Origins of language1.1.1 The divine speech1.1.2 The natural-sound source1.1.3 The oral-gesture source1.1.4 GlossogeneticsPhysiological adaptation1.2 Functions of languageInteractionsTransactions1.1 Speculations about the origins of human speech❶The divine speech神授说In most religious, there appears to be divine source who provides humans with language.God created Adam and “whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof” (Genesis 2:19)In Hindu tradition, language came from the goddess Sarasvati, wife of Brahma, creator of the universe.In an attempt to rediscover this original, divine language, a few experiments have been carried out, with rather conflicting results.The basic hypothesis seems to have been that, if infants were allowed to grow up without hearing any language, then they would spontaneously begin using the original God-given language.An Egyptian pharaoh named Psammetichus tried the experiment with two newborn infants around 600BC. After two years in the company of goats and a mute shepherd, the children wer reported to have spontaneously uttered, not an Egyptian word, but something reported to be the Phrygian word bekos, meaning …bread‟.The pharaoh concluded that Phrygian must be the original language.That seems unlikely. The children may not have picked up this …word‟ from any human source, but, as several commentators have pointed out, they must have heard what the goats were saying. James IV of Scotland carried out a similar experiment around AD 1500 and the children were reported to have started speaking Hebrew.Children living without access to human speech in their early years grow up with no language at all.If human language did emanate from a divine source, we have no way of reconstructing that original language, especially given the event in a city called Babel “because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth” (Genesis 11:9)❷The natural-sound source 自然声音模仿说Primitive words could have been imitations of the natural sounds which early men and women heard around them. “bow-wow theory”When an object flew by, making a CAWCAW sound, the early human imitated the sound and used it to refer to the object associated with the sound. And when another flying object made a CUCKOO sound, that natural sound was adopted to refer to that object.The fact that all modern languages have some words with pronunciations which seem to …echo‟naturally occurring sounds could be used to support this theory.In English, in addition to cuckoo, we have splash, bang, boom, rattle, buzz, hiss, screech, and forms such as bow-wow.In fact, this type of view has been called the “bow-bow theory” of language origin.☒ While in any language are onomatopoeic (echoing natural sounds), it is hard to see how most of the soundless, not to mention abstract, entities in our world could have been referred to in a language that simply echoed natural sounds.☒ We might also be rather skeptical about a view that seems to assume that a language is only a set of words which are used as …names‟ for entities.The original sounds of language came from natural cries of emotion, such as pain, anger and joy.By this route, presumably, OUCH came to have its painful connotations.Other interjections, often represents as Ah!, Hey!, Wow! or Yuck!, are not actually uttered via the consonants and vowels we use in trying to write them down. They also are often produced with sudden intakes of breath (the opposite of ordinary talk).The sounds of a person involved in physical effort could be the source of our language, especially when that physical effort involved several people and had to be coordinated.So, a group of early humans might develop a set of grunts, groans and swear words which they used when lifting and carrying bits of trees or lifeless mammoths.The appeal of this theory is that it places the development of human language in some social context.Human sounds, however produced, may have had some principled use within the social life of early human groups.This is an interesting idea which may relate to the use of humanly produced sounds.☒ It does not, however, answer the question regarding the origins of the sounds produced. Apes and other primates have grunts and social calls, but they do not seem to have developed the capacity for speech.❸The oral-gesture source 口语-手势相关说Originally a set of physical gestures was developed as a means of communication. Then a set of oral gestures, specifically involving the mouth, developed, in which the movements of the tongue, lips and so on were recognized according to patterns of movement similar to physical gestures.You might think of the movement of the tongue (oral gesture) in a …goodbye‟ mes sage as representative of the waving of the hand or arm (physical gesture) for a similar message.☒ We can, indeed, use mime or specific gestures for a variety of communicative purposes, but it is hard to visualize the actual …oral‟ aspect which would mirror many such gestures.☒ Moreover, there is an extremely large number of linguistic messages which would appear to defy transmission via this type of gesturing.As a simple experiment, try to communicate, using only gesture, the following message to another member of your species: My uncle thinks he’s invisible. Be prepared for a certain amount of misunderstanding.❹ Glossogenetics言语遗传说Glossogenetics focuses mainly on the biological basis of the formation and development of human language.It starts with the observation that, at some early stage, our human ancestors made the transition to an upright posture, with bipedal (two-legged) locomotion, and a revised role for the front limbs. In the evolutionary development there are certain physical features, best thought of as partial adaptations, that appear to be relevant for speech. By themselves, such features would not lead to speech production, but they are good clues that a creature possessing such features probably has the capacity for speech.Physiological adaptation↓牙Human teeth are upright, not slanting outwards like those of apes, and they are roughly even in height. Such characteristics are not needed for eating, but they are extremely helpful in making sounds such as f, v and th.↓唇Human lips have much more intricate muscle interlacing than is found in other primates and their resulting flexibility certainly helps with sounds like p, b and w.↓嘴The human mouth is relatively small, can be opened and closed rapidly, and contains a very flexible tongue which can be used to shape a wide variety of sounds.↓喉The human larynx, or the …voice box‟ (containing the vocal cords), differs significantly in position from that of monkeys.↓咽In the course of human physical development, the assumption of an upright posture moved the head forward and the larynx lower. This created a longer cavity, called the pharynx, above the vocal cords, which can act as a resonator for any sounds produced via the larynx.↓脑The human brain is lateralized1, that is, it has specialized functions in each of the two hemispheres.Those functions which are analytic, such as tool-using and language, are largely confined to the left hemisphere of the brain for most humans.It may be that there is an evolutionary connection between the tool-using and language-using abilities of humans, and that both are related to the development of the human brain.1.2 Interactions & Transactions❶interactional functionIt has to do with how humans use language to interact with each other, socially or emotionally; how they indicate friendliness, co-operation or hostility, or annoyance, pain, or pleasure.❷transactional functionHumans use their linguistic abilities to communicate knowledge, skills and information.This transfer function of language remains fairly restricted in time and space as long as it can only be realized in speech. By its nature, speech is transient.The desire fro a more permanent record of what was known must have been the primary motivation for the development of markings and inscriptions and, eventually, of written language.1lateralized 单侧化。
英语语言学课件Chapter 1 The Origins of Languag
a
8
Transactions
• Humans use linguistic abilities to communicate knowledge, skills and information
• The transfer function of L remains fairly restricted in time and space as long as it can only be realized in speech
Chapter 1 The Origins of Language
• We do not know how language originated • Spoken language developed well before written language
a
1
The Divine Source
• How about soundless, abstract entities in a L? • L is only a set of words which are used as “names” for entities?
a
3
The Natural-sound Source
• Also suggested L came from natural cries of emotion, such as pain, anger, joy
a
9
• We can use mime or specific gestures for a variety of communicative purposes, hard to visualize the actual “oral” aspect which would mirror many such gestures.
the origin of language
The Origin of LanguageCHARLES V. TAYLORABSTRACTTheories of the origin of language are first discussed from a linguistic point of view in secular writing. Evolution had less effect on linguisticsthan on other social sciences, yet history shows that secondary effectswere felt. No true link has ever been found with animal communication.The work of Noam Chomsky brought linguists back to uniquely humanorigins for language, but the question is so complex that little headwaycan be made without investigation of mental factors. This survey concludesthat the creative, miraculous element must be invoked, and the Bible itselfgives hints of important features in the understanding of linguisticprocesses.In discussing linguistic origins, people with some biblical background will often confuse language and languages. In such a discussion, thoughts often settle first on the Tower of Babel. However, the Bible indicates that there were two distinct miraculous events: the original creation of Adam as a talking and understanding being; and the subsequent division of humanity into language groups as a judgment on the rebellion of the descendants of Noah. This article is concerned with the former.But first, the question of pre-programming for language, as against a learning process, is not strictly relevant to the question of the creation of a linguistic ability. However, the Lockean assumption of a 'clean slate' before learning went to extremes with behaviourists like B. F. Skinner, who dominated language learning in mid-century. The arrival of the linguist Chomsky on the scene restored a balance, in that it favoured a pre-programming prior to learning.This pre-programming represented the universal human linguistic gift, quite distinct from whether someone is a 'good linguist', meaning that they are good at learning foreign languages. All humans have a 'linguistic gift', given, I believe, at creation, but only some can operate in more than one specific language easily. Our English language is deficient in that we cannot in argument terminology distinguish between these two uses of the term 'linguistic gift'. In this article I deal with the ability to speak a 'mother-tongue', which is all I am referring to, and not to the additional gift of being what popular jargon calls a 'linguist'.It was Noam Chomsky who restored interest in human universal ability to speak coherently, and he restored the balance by criticising the 'empty slate' stance of Skinner and others, saying that this was insufficient to account for 76 all the facts. It is significant that Chomsky, though an agnostic, still regarded human language as 'miraculous', distinguishing humans from animals. To that extent he departed from some evolutionist assumptions. Naturally, a human exposed to a specific language would not speak coherently, so there must be an environmental catalyst. It is not true that feral children have no programmed ability to understand any future language to which they would become exposed, as will be seen by reference to evidence later in this article. It may be, of course, that if a feral child managed to reach adulthood without ever contacting a language environment, such an ability might have atrophied by the time of post-puberty, as hypothesised by some of the Chomsky school.But my chief aim in this article is to exult in the wonder of the signs of God's creative gift, as witnessed in the human mind.Most secular writers have avoided the question during most of the twentieth century. This attitude can be traced to the changed interests of linguists consequent on the seminal work of Ferdinand de Saussure, especially the proposition that 'states of language' are far more significant to linguists than the history of language.1 His terms were 'synchronic' (non-historical) as opposed to 'diachronic' (historical) studies.This was a reaction against the nineteenth century preoccupation with what used to be called 'philology', in which etymology and the establishment of boundaries between language families were key ingredients. The pendulum is slowly swinging back to the study of language in history, partly through interest in the way pidgins and Creoles come about, and in language change.CEN Tech. J., vol. 11, no. 1, 1997FROM ANIMALS TO HUMANS?As regards the origin of language per se, it should be noted that when evolution was first applied to linguistics, early attempts at linking human language to animal communication were the chief subjects of debate. How could chattering ape-folk transform a needs-motivated set of habits into the phonological complexity we now call language? The animals can on their own terms communicate, but not in the positive sense of reading the communicator's mind or intentions, though in those days 'mind' was itself a taboo word. Most animal cries relate to distress, belonging to the pack, mating approaches or antagonism.After Darwin, most evolutionist linguists made the assumption that the Babel event recorded in Scripture never really took place, or if it did, not in a miraculous manner.2 One might say that, while evolutionists reject a literal Genesis anyway, in terms of emphasis:evolutionist linguists reject the Babel accountevolutionist geologists reject the Noahic Flood account evolutionist biologists reject the account up to the creation of humansevolutionist astronomers reject Genesis 1:1-16For example, Gamkrelidze and Ivanov claim that linguists can work backwards in the way that microbiologists try to go back to understand the evolution of life. Linguists have, they say, 'reconstructed the vocabulary and syntax of the postulated Indo-European protolanguage with increasing confidence and insight'.3 I would agree about the confidence, but I'm not so sure about the insight! Study of the phonology, grammar and lexis of ancient languages can do no more than associate diverse languages, or very broadly identify language families. Study of vocabulary usually includes semantics, through which it is hoped to understand non-linguistic features of ancient societies and so assist anthropologists.Shevoroshkin argued that language reflects a people's social and practical concerns and that this would be an improvement on conventional archaeology, which cannot 'speak' to us.4 In trying to reduce the number of distinct language families (and so avoid the miracle of Babel), Shevoroshkin introduced the label 'Nostratic' for the 'reconstruction' of a protolanguage linking five or six major language families. He focused on pronouns, body parts and major features of the environment. But this is extremely speculative, and depends on the researcher's individual semantic interpretations.However, the problem is that we have no absolute information to tell us how word meanings had changed before the arrival of dictionaries, and even when lexicons are available(a) they have to be dated from extra-linguistic artefacts and(b) other than obvious labelling, which is rare in ancienttimes, the exact meanings of words and expressions are still relatively inaccessible.CEN Tech. J., vol. 11, no. 1, 1997 Lewin argued that'unlike biplogicdl species, languages change at anastonishing rate, as anyone who has struggled withChaucer will attest. As a result, most historical linguists agree that going back more than 5,000 to 7,000 yearsis a futile enterprise.'5Even during the evolution-dominated years, leading linguists, wishing to move away from nineteenth century naivete, have steadfastly refused to investigate possible links with animal communication. The best-known linguist of the twentieth century, Noam Chomsky, though an evolutionist, has consistently maintained that there is no connection;6 and that, as Descartes (not surprisingly) insisted long before him,7 language is 'species-specific',8 and must have originated in humanity through some genetic input. To this extent, trans-speciate evolution seldom came into the picture in linguistics.In fact, Chomsky insists that mid-century studies based on the evolution of language from apes to humans only 'bring out more clearly the extent to which human language appears to be a unique phenomenon, without significant analogue in the animal world.'9Karl Popper proposed 'stages' from vocal gestures usedto express emotion and onwards, but Chomsky sees no continuity in this,10 and certainly no mechanism is even suggested. W. H. Thorpe even pointed out that from physical characteristics one might regard birds as a more likely source for language than mammals! Nevertheless, he regarded human language and animal communication as having three features in common: both are 'purposive', aiming to change another's behaviour; 'syntactic', that is, having internal structure; and 'propositional', transmitting information.11 To a creationist, even if such terms are appropriate, this merely indicates a common Creator. As for Chomsky, he commented by pointing out that walking could also be saidto have these three characteristics, so that Thorpe's propositions seem to lead nowhere.12Strange labels were given to nineteenth century attemptsto formulate some credible basis for language arising from primitive communication in social contexts. Some such were:(a) the 'bow-wow' theory, suggesting that ejaculatorynoises began to acquire specific meanings, much inthe way that dogs may radiate pleasure, aggression, etc.through different barking styles;(b) the 'ding-dong' theory, with calls for help, as in today'sworld of sirens, triggering off messages with specificcontent; and(c) the 'yo-heave-ho' theory, suggesting that combinedlabour encouraged comments and directions to emerge.Still others have exhaustively examined child languagein the hope of finding a progression which might in some recapitulatory framework mirror the first human attemptsat communication.1314 But this theory has the same drawbacks as those of Haeckel's embryonic recapitulation theories, except perhaps that we can trace no deliberate77forgery in its presentation.Chomsky insists that grammar is not learnt in the child by trial and error, or else children could not make new grammatical sentences which they have never heard before.15 That this takes place is shown by experiments using nonsense words and asking the child to respond to questions which they must process.16 In connection with Columbia University's experiments with apes, Chomsky stated that 'saying apes can acquire language because they can learn some simple signs . . . is like saying humans can fly because they can jump'.17Lenneberg studied language impairment in the 1960s and said this shows that when recoveries occur they can be sudden, indicating a species-specific ability.18 Such recovery also depends on having acquired language during a critical period of development in childhood. Children unconsciously process their parents' language in order to work out the grammar. But hearing is an essential part of language, because by its very nature language has to be a shared code'.9Linguists are agreed that a distinction must be preserved between conditioning through learning by imitation and learning by rules applied to incoming signals. The second of these theories of language development points strongly to a divinely bestowed genetic gift to humans.In this connection, Carroll was one of the first to distinguish 'language acquisition' (learning the mother-tongue) from foreign or second language learning.20 He asks whether first language learning is learning at all, or whether perhaps it is rather a biological process of growth, or as Chomsky would say, 'genetic maturation' or linguistic competence'.21 Most today would say that first language learning is a mixture of genetic maturation and social learning.What is remarkable (and miraculous) is that it begins spontaneously in the normal child, and that adults do not in any formal sense 'teach' language. When they correct children it is usually on matters of truth or appropriateness. Only a minority with interest in language will bother to correct the language itself. Despite this, children stubbornly learn to communicate. They also react differentially to different voices and, in bilingual societies, to different languages.Chomsky often uses the term 'creative' when referring to the ability of the child to acquire a grammar.2223 He also insists that 'a description of what an organism does and a description of what it knows can be very different things '.24 Menyuk concluded that the average child gets its grammar by age three, though Chomsky is more cautious and merely regards it as very early acquisition.25THOUGHTAND LANGUAGEIn addition to interests in child language, philosophers have often written articles on the relationship between thought and language, in an attempt to unravel the78mechanisms of language production. Language is, mysteriously, at the same time both physical and mental, and the two modes must meet somewhere. Yet in a sense, the establishment of this relationship is both pointless and obscure. Pointless, because mere humans cannot fathom the true depths of such a relationship, and obscure, because 'thought' is impossible to measure scientifically or even to illustrate by any adequate metaphor or model.Many scientists who are Christians rightly sing the praises of God when describing the human body. Indeed, much can be said scientifically about the wonders of the human ear. Yet this knowledge is overtly describable, whereas the link between brain-thought and mouth-speech is much more ineffable and recondite.What is the use of humans having a wonderful and most delicate aural system, if you cannot link it to a brain that can understand language? Many animals, doubtless, can be shown to have remarkable hearing, but animals cannot talk, neither can they, in the accepted linguistic sense, understand speech. They may respond to noise and even voice-tone, but, so far as we can discover, they do not act in any non-programmed way, such as is characteristic of human use of language. We therefore assume that language is unique to humans.Some thirty years ago Chomsky referred to 'the particular branch of cognitive psychology known as linguistics',26 thus placing thought squarely in the centre of linguistic capacity. Indeed, the use of language cannot begin to be understood until some connection is made between processes of thought and processes of speech. That's why language is so miraculous. It just has to be a gift from God. The study of language is really the study of mind, as shown in Figure 1.Figure 1. A representation of the two stages we might callcommunicating and understanding.Figure 1 is a crude representation of what happens in the two stages we might call communicating and understanding. It will be seen that this representation includes(a) mental events,(b) physiological events, and (c) physical events,and so incorporates the non-living world, the biological world and the world of the invisible within the functions of the brain. In that sense, one might say 'language is everything'. Who is able to investigate such an amalgam?Granted that early behaviourist psychologists like Watson tried to show parallels between physical and mental phenomena, no experiment they produced was able to establish true correlates with the processes of thoughtCEN Tech. J., vol. 11, no. 1, 1997through mechanical measurements. According to Chomsky: 'What is involved is not a matter of degree of complexity but rather of quality of complexity. Correspondingly, there is no reason to expect that the available technology can provide significant insight or understanding of useful achievements [or] any significant advance in our understanding of the use or nature of language.'27 Indeed, he insists that this was known in principle in the seventeenth century:'The Cartesians tried to show that when the theory of corporeal body is sharpened and clarified and extended to its limits, it is still incapable of accounting for facts that are obvious to introspection and that are also confirmed by our observation of the actions of other humans.'2*There is more to it, then, than the physical, and we are hard put to it to find anything equivalent in the animal world. This is what Chomsky calls 'the creative aspect of language use'.29 Descartes wrote that normal language use is a certain sign that there is a reality we know as 'mind', and that linguistic ability 'cannot be detected in an animal'.30 In the late sixteenth century a Spanish doctor, Juan Huarte, wrote a study of human intelligence, stating that its best evidence is language use, imparting a creative capacity.31 In a trivial sense it may be argued that there is a creative element in understanding as well as in speaking, if indeed the 'matching' theories are correct. Some linguists have argued for an internal generation of speech to match incoming signals as part of the process of understanding. This would explain why Lashley, as far back as 1951, performed a linguistic experiment on his audience at a conference. To make this experiment work for the reader I have had to misspell the second word, to give something like the effect of 'hearing' the following sentence read out, roughly as Lashley read it out from a novel:32'Rapid riting with his left hand proved difficult, but successful in saving from further damage the fixtures in the capsized canoe.'33Lashley's audience wrote it down as 'writing', and then by the end of the sentence something 'clicked' and they had to delete this and substitute 'righting'. This, according to Chomsky, showed that the understanding of language is not merely a mechanical linear process but has a re-creative element sometimes brought into play even when the language has been fully 'learnt'.If creativity is involved in understanding as much as in the production of language, this helps us to accept the fact that we understand more than we can produce. In both first and second language learning it is clear that in exchanges we understand more than we produce, even in the matter of learning new sounds.Berko and Brown record an interview with a toddler who had not yet managed to produce the English sound represented by the letters 'sh'. The interview went something like this:Adult: Is that your fish?CEN Tech. J., vol. 11, no. 1, 1997Child: Yes, my fis.Adult: Oh, I see It's your fis?Child: No, not my fis. My fis.34It is obvious that the child recognised the distinction of consonants, but could not produce the actual distinction physically.The creative aspect of language use itself involves: (a) innovation, which is beyond mere analogy and embracesconcordant analogy;(b) freedom from detectable stimulus; and(c) positive suitability to the situation in which it is used.35 The famous Port-Royal Grammar summarised this threefold description by stating:'[human language is a] marvellous invention by which we construct from twenty-five or thirty sounds an infinity of expressions which, having no resemblance in themselves to what takes place in our minds, still enable us to let others know the secret of what we conceive and of all the various mental activities that we carry out.'36Chomsky's most common description of language is that it is 'rule-governed behaviour'. This reminds us of God's command to humans in Genesis 1:28 to 'have dominion' over the animals and over the entire physical world. Without becoming irreverent we could say that it is part of the 'image of God' placed in humans, even though most Christians would relate that only to what is 'spiritual'. Yet it seems that, without a conscious mind, spiritual abilities cannot properly be exercised.George Miller claimed that'talking and understanding language do not depend on being intelligent or having a large brain. They depend on "being human " . . . [a child] acquires [language] from parents who have no idea how to explain it to him. No careful schedule of rewards for correct or punishments for incorrect utterances is necessary.'31J. L. Austin further investigated what might be called the 'power of words'. This must not be confused with some of today's heretical views on so-called 'faith' speaking. But it is true that we do perform mental assurance through words.38 One example of this is the way we use ceremonies to make marriage valid, using set wordings. Another is the way a prominent figure launches a ship saying: 'I hereby name this ship . . .'THE BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVECan we learn something about the origin of language from a direct approach to Scripture? The first example of language used in Genesis 1:3 is significant. God 'says' (Hebrew 'amar). At this stage there is no human present to hear it, though we shall argue that its appearance in the written record means that we 'hear' it in a sense today in our own language, so it certainly has a message for us.One spiritual message is that in God's mouth speech is powerful and creative. After all, God 'made man's mouth'.3979Such a passage assures us that there is power in 'the Word', the name Scripture gives to the Bible itself, and to messages based on Scripture given by God's true messengers. There is a whole theology here, somewhat beyond our current concerns.For example, why does this word 'said' occur so early in the piece, before the creation of humans? Is it that, for humans to have meaning as creatures, it was necessary for the concept of language to exist even in the Godhead? In what sense is the Lord Jesus Christ called 'the Word of God' through the Apostle John and others?Coming now to physical creation, the first occurrence of language where humans are recorded as already created is in Genesis 1:28: 'Then God blessed them, and God said .. '. In Scripture 'blessing' is always connected with words, so here we have one of Austin's 'performatives'. But this also takes us out of the mystic use the word has been acquiring in some churches at this time, a usage which is of very doubtful validity, since 'blessing' has no necessary connection with feelings, but with an understanding of God's love.God gives commands to Adam and Eve (for Eve's creation is assumed here through the plural 'them', even though the manner of creation is not specified until Genesis 2:22 in the recapitulation of this one and only creation of woman). Thus we see that God expresses His love in blessing them even before giving them the laws for their life on the perfect Earth He has created for them.From Genesis 1:28 we have to assume that Adam and Eve could understand language, for God never uses any methods purposelessly. This human pair were equipped with a highly complex aural system, behind which was an even more complex brain and thought system. By now we are into one of the greatest and most controversial arguments of linguistically inclined academics. Some say with Locke that the mind is a tabula rasa (empty tablet) on to which language impinges in childhood.40 Others say there is a genetic ability to understand before any meaningful language is addressed to the young child. The Bible appears to support the latter, since(a) God's words must not be fruitless, and(b) shortly after this we find Adam engaging in dialoguewith God.41Note that the programming is only concerned with the ability to understand and not with any automatic responses to what is understood.But before that we find Adam speaking unprompted before God in Genesis 2:23. He speaks poetically. And here we come up against the nineteenth century idea that poetry is more 'primitive' than prose, for which there is surely no evidence linguistically. In fact, rhythmic or semantically parallel utterances are obviously more advanced than plain speech. However, we know that the idea of the 'primitive savage' came from minds like that of the unbeliever Rousseau, later to be taken up by the evolutionists.80We are not saying that Adam was preprogrammed with God's language, because we do not understand such things, not having been present. Adam as a functioning adult must have had some special programming, but we cannot say to what extent this directed his speech. He would presumably thereafter learn from his linguistic environment, just as we do.Scripture nowhere condemns talking to oneself. In fact, most people understand David to be doing just that in Psalm 103:1-5. Of course, Adam's poem could have been addressed to Eve, and 'this' may have been his original word for 'you', in the manner of an I-not I relationship, since he had never before seen a human being. Thus it's not clear in Genesis 2:23 for whom Adam is speaking. Most likely it was in thanks to God anyway, since anything the sinless Adam did in this perfect world must have been to God's glory. I doubt if it was mere soliloquy.From the above we note that the Bible gives evidence of 'receptive' communication, followed by what linguists call 'productive' communication. Although this is the agreed order of things in child language development, the case with Adam is an adult situation and should not be compared, in case we are led into theories of physical recapitulation of events. God had, with the miracle of bodily creation, also given Adam a miraculous gift, which we call 'language'. Thus the Bible describes no age-long practice prior to the establishment of normal adult linguistic ability.To complete the picture, Scripture shows a discussion between God on the one hand and Adam and Eve on the other, indicating that by this time certain quasi-logical elements were present in human language. We have to remember that this element, though undoubtedly within God's power to bestow, was not necessarily in His perfect will at that time. After all, another voice, that of a fallen angel, had intervened in Genesis 3:1. This intervention introduced the question form into human thought and language.Now the question itself is not a sinful form. God Himself is recorded as using it on numerous occasions. But this is a far different matter from the mental and indeed spiritual act of questioning the integrity of God's character. Here we have gone beyond language into morality and Divine-human relationships.CONCLUSIONReturning to the physical, we see that practically all the known functions of language are in evidence right from the creation. We can therefore say with confidence that God created language and that language is a perfect gift, powerful but therefore dangerous in a sinful world. Yet the wonder of the gift remains, and I am continually amazed as I ponder the remarkable way in which such an apparently unrelated set of events as we have in our bodies becomes a vehicle for complex and, if we allow the Holy Spirit to teach us, uplifting thoughts.CEN Tech. J., vol. 11, no. 1, 1997REFERENCES1. de Saussure, E, 1916. Course in General Linguistics, in English, 1959,p. 102.2. Greenberg, J. H., a specialist in historical linguistics, is typical. He speaksof 'the Babel legend' in 'The linguistic approach' part of 'Three approaches to language behavior'. In: Osgood, C. E. and Sebeok,T. A., 1965. Psycholinguistics: A Survey of Theory and Research Problems, p. 16.3. Gamkrelidze, T. V and Ivanov, V V, 1990. The early history of Indo-European languages. Scientific American, 262(3): 82-89.4. Shovoroshkin, V, 1990. Linguists have the first word. New Scientist,128(1722):28.5. Lewin, R., 1990. Ancestral voices at war. New Scientist, 128(1722):25.6. Chomsky, N., 1968. Language and Mind, p. 9.7. Chomsky, N., 1966. Cartesian Linguistics, as cited in Chomsky, Ref. 6,p. 8.8. Chomsky, Ref. 6, p. 9.9. Chomsky, Ref. 6, p. 59.10. Chomsky, Ref. 6, p. 60 (both references).11. Chomsky, Ref. 6.12. Chomsky, Ref. 6, pp. 60-61.13. Lewis, M. M, 1951. Infant Speech: A Study of the Beginnings ofLanguage.14. Black, M, 1968 (1972 edition). The Labyrinth of Language, p. 15.15. Chomsky, N., 1957. Syntactic Structures, passim.16. Fishbein, J. and Emans, R., 1972. A Question of Competence, pp. 46,48, 54, 55.17. Horgan, J., 1990. Profile of Chomsky. Scientific American, 262(5): 17.18. Lenneberg, E., 1962. Understanding language without ability to speak:a case report. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LXV:419-425.19. Pinker, S., 1994. An instinct for language. New Scientist, 142(1931):30.20. Carroll, J. B., 1960. Language development in children. In:Encyclopaedia of Educational Research, ad loc.21. Chomsky tends to stress maturation in psychological works, andcompetence in linguistic writing.22. Chomsky, Ref. 6, p. 6.23. Chomsky, N., 1964. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, pp. 8f, 111.24. Chomsky, N., 1963. Formal properties of grammars. In: Handbook ofMathematical Psychology, E. Nagel et al. (eds), pp. 328-418.25. Menyuk, P., 1963. A preliminary evaluation of grammatical capacity inchildren. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2:346-351.26. Chomsky, Ref. 6, p. 1. 27. Chomsky, Ref. 6, p. 4.28. Chomsky, Ref. 6, p. 5.29. Chomsky, Ref. 6, p. 6.30. Chomsky, Ref. 6, p. 6.31. Chomsky, Ref. 6, p. 9.32. Lashley, K. S., 1951. The problem of serial order in behavior. In:Cerebral Mechanisms in Behavior, L. A. Jeffress (ed.), pp. 112-136.33. Most people on hearing this spoken think first of rapid writing, but thentowards the end of the sentence have to change the whole meaning to fit the complete sentence. This involves a grammatical and semantic shift.34. Berko, J. and Brown, R., 1960. Psycholinguistic research methods. In:Handbook of Research Methods in Child Development, P. H. Mussen (ed.), pp. 517-557.35. Chomsky, Ref. 6, pp. 10-11.36. Chomsky, Ref. 6, p. 18.37. Miller, G. A., 1968. The Psychology of Communication, pp. 86, 87.38. Austin, J. L., 1962. How to Do Things with Words, which is the seminalbook on 'performative' verbs and expressions.39. Exodus 4:11.40. John Locke (1632-1704) was the best-known Western proponent of theempirical idea that humans begin life with an 'empty slate' on to which all we learn is 'written' during our lifetime.41. While it is true that God spoke to the sea creatures in Genesis 1:22, thereis no indication either in Scripture or from science that animals understand language in the way humans do. Certainly they may 'respond', and they may have been more sensitive before the curse arrived, but in any case the matter is not relevant to this discussion.42. Perhaps the only feature of child language acquisition on which alllinguists agree is the fact that, whether in teaching or testing circumstances, humans always show a greater ability to understand than to produce language.Charles V. Taylor has B.A.s in languages, music and theology, an M.A. in applied linguistics and a Ph.D. in a central African language. He is a Fellow of the Institute of Linguists, and for eight years served as Co-ordinator of applied linguistics courses in The University of Sydney. The author often Christian books, Dr Taylor now lives in semi-retirement in Gosford, New South Wales, having served on the staff of Garden City School of Ministries and on the Board of Creation Science Foundation.CEN Tech. J., vol. 11, no. 1, 1997 81。
第二章语言的起源.ppt
直立 有阻气流 咀嚼 舌头 视野扩大、手促进脑发育、营养
第二节 语言起源的过程
一、恩格斯关于语言起源的学说
语言的产生必须具备以下三个条件： 1）社会条件，即人类社会，只有人类社会才需要
语言； 2）生理条件，即发音器官；
3）心理条件，即有能进行高度抽象思维的大脑。 而这三个条件都是依靠劳动来满足的。 所谓劳动决定了产生语言的需要，是指劳动创造 了语言产生的社会条件； 谓劳动决定了产生语言的可能就是指劳动创造了 语言产生的生理条件和心理条件，正是在这个意 义上我们说“劳动创造了语言”。
个体发生角度 问题所在： 1）儿童语言习得过程中的言语环境和生
理、心理机制与原始人类并不相同。 2）儿童与原始人类性质也不同。
第一节 怎样看待和探讨语言起源问题
一、怎样探讨语言起源问题？
种系发生角度
两个方面：一是原始部落语言的研究；二是人 类荒古时代的同宗黑猩猩语言学习研究
因和条件，一是语言产生的具体过程。
第一节 怎样看待和探讨语言起源问题
一、怎样探讨语言起源问题？
个体发生角度就是以儿童语言的研究入 手去揭示语言起源的秘密。
第一节 怎样看待和探讨语言起源问题
一、怎样探讨语言起源问题？
个体发生角度
第一节 怎样看待和探讨语言起源问题
一、怎样探讨语言起源问题？
第一节 怎样看待和探讨语言起源问题
一、怎样探讨语言起源问题？
种系发生角度
问题所在： 1）现存的原始部落的语言，并不是人类刚
产生时的语言。 2）黑猩猩并非人类的祖先，它们的语言现
状与原始人开始讲话时的情况完全不同。
第一节 语言起源
（3）“感叹说” 感叹说” 认为语言起源于原始人对各种感受而引起的感叹， 认为语言起源于原始人对各种感受而引起的感叹，人类的 原始语言就是由这种感叹声演变而来。 原始语言就是由这种感叹声演变而来。根据是每种语言中都有 一些感叹词。 一些感叹词。 上面（ ）（ ）（3）两种观点的评价： 上面（2）（ ）两种观点的评价：能够部分的解释语言中一 些成分的来源，但是对非拟声词和非叹词等现象无从解释。 些成分的来源，但是对非拟声词和非叹词等现象无从解释。 （4）“手势说”以苏格拉底、法国的孔狄亚克、伏尔泰、前 手势说”以苏格拉底、法国的孔狄亚克、伏尔泰、 苏联的马尔为代表 认为原始的语言不是有声语言，而是手和身体的姿态， 认为原始的语言不是有声语言，而是手和身体的姿态，有 声语言就是在这种手势和身姿的基础上发展而来的。 声语言就是在这种手势和身姿的基础上发展而来的。
2、18世纪 、 世纪 世纪——语言起源的科学探讨的开始 语言起源的科学探讨的开始
同时，一些有头脑的学者开始用世俗的眼光看待语言的起源和发展， 同时，一些有头脑的学者开始用世俗的眼光看待语言的起源和发展， 其中最有名的三位是：孔狄亚克（ 1714-1780）， ），卢 其中最有名的三位是：孔狄亚克（E. B. de Condillac 1714-1780），卢 1712-1778），赫尔德（ ），赫尔德 1744梭（J. J. Rousseau 1712-1778），赫尔德（J. G. von Herder 17441803）。孔狄亚克在《人类知识起源论》 1746）中探讨了语言起源问题； ）。孔狄亚克在 1803）。孔狄亚克在《人类知识起源论》（1746）中探讨了语言起源问题； 卢梭在1754年的《论人类不平等的起源》中论及同一问题， 1754年的 卢梭在1754年的《论人类不平等的起源》中论及同一问题，后来又专门写 了一本《论语言的起源》 在他逝世四年后问世。 了一本《论语言的起源》，在他逝世四年后问世。 18世纪中叶以后，语言起源问题已成为欧洲学界关注的焦点，许许多 18世纪中叶以后，语言起源问题已成为欧洲学界关注的焦点， 世纪中叶以后 多学者加入了辩论的行列。1769年 多学者加入了辩论的行列。1769年，柏林普鲁士皇家科学院甚至决定设立 专奖，以征求有关语言起源问题的最佳解答。 专奖，以征求有关语言起源问题的最佳解答。来自欧洲各国的数十位学者 参加了这场竞争。一年后，最终有三十篇论作呈交科学院。在这些用德文、 参加了这场竞争。一年后，最终有三十篇论作呈交科学院。在这些用德文、 法文、拉丁文等写成的作品中，有六篇受到评审人士称赞， 法文、拉丁文等写成的作品中，有六篇受到评审人士称赞，还有一些被认 为写得不错，但是获得科学院奖并由科学院指定出版的只有一篇， 为写得不错，但是获得科学院奖并由科学院指定出版的只有一篇，那就是 赫尔德的《论语言的起源》 赫尔德的《论语言的起源》。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
The Origins of Language
What is the origin of language?
How did humans invent this tool?
Origin of Language
The origin of language is a topic that has been written about for centuries. We know that, at least once during human evolution, a system of verbal communication emerged from proto-linguistic or non-linguistic means of communication, but beyond that little can be said.
Speculations on the Origin of Language
⏹The divine source
⏹The natural-sound source
⏹The oral-gesture source
⏹Glossogenetics（言语遗传学）
The Divine Source
In most religions, there appears to be a divine source who provides humans with language.
The Biblical account in Genesis
⏹The Book of Genesis2:19-20 God give Adam the task of assigning names to all the animals and plants he had in Eden.
⏹The key Biblical narrative is a later Bible story that God punished human for building the Tower of Babel by confusing the tongues of the builders; the observed variety of human languages is a consequence of that divine judgment:
Origin of Language
God descended to see the city and the tower that the sons of man had built. God said, 'They are a single people, all having one
language, and this is the first thing they do! Now nothing they plan to do will be unattainable for them! Come, let us descend and confuse their speech, so that one person will not
understand another's speech'.From that place, God scattered them all over the face of the earth, and they stopped building the city. He named it Babel, because this was the place where God confused the world's language.It was from there that God dispersed humanity over all the face of the earth.
Experiments
A few experiments have been carried out on the basis of a hypothesis that if infants were allowed to grow up without hearing any language, then they would spontaneously begin using the original God-given language.
Psammetichus’Experiment
An Egyptian pharaoh Psammetichus tried the experiment with two newborn infants around 600 BC. After two years in the company of goats and a mute shepherd, the children were reported to have spontaneously uttered, not an Egyptian word, but something reported to be the Phrygian words bekos, meaning “bread”.
The Experiment of James Ⅳof Scotland
⏹He carried out a similar experiment around AD 1500 and the children were reported to have started speaking Hebrew.
⏹All other cases of children who have been discovered living without access to human speech in their early years, grow up with no language at all.
The natural-sound source
⏹This view suggests that primitive words could have been imitations of the natural sounds which early men and women heard around them.
⏹The “bow-wow”hypothesis: imitation of animal sounds
⏹The “pooh-pooh”hypothesis: instinctive utterance of pain, anger and joy
⏹The “yo-he-ho”hypothesis: rhythmic chants and vocalisms uttered in communal labor.
The Oral-gesture Source
⏹The oral-gesture theory proposes an extremely specific connection between physical and oral gesture.
⏹Originally a set of physical gestures were developed as a means of communication. Then a set of oral gestures developed.
Glossogentics
⏹Glossogentics focuses mainly on the biological basis of the formation and development of human language.
⏹In the evolutionary development there are certain physical features, best thought of as partial adaptations, that appear to be relevant for speech.
Each of these speculations may account for certain aspects of human language; however,
it remains a mystery!。