http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140611102209.htm
The origin of human language
has been a contentious topic of researches and discussions for several
centuries. Even so, there is no direct and clear evidence of it, but there
exist some theoretical assumptions by various scholars. In the following essay,
I would like to write my positions on theoretical perspectives of the origins
of human language, more precisely, about monogenesis/polygenesis and
continuity/discontinuity approaches.
Firstly, there are two
approaches like continuity and discontinuity in the dispute of the origins of
human language. Continuity theory has a perspective of Darwin’s theory of
language origin, which proposes that “human language can be derived
evolutionarily by well-understood processes operating on the kind of
communicative display system general in the vertebrates” (Hill, 1974, p.134).
Similarly, this assumption suggests that human language has evolved from
non-human animals’ communication, for instance, imitating animal and bird
sounds, and that language is a big necessity of every daily life of human
beings. The most famous linguists support this evolutionary foundation which
indicates that animal communication was a precursor to human language, and then
it is evolved over time of evolution (Hill, 1974).
On the other hand,
discontinuity theory of the origin of human language takes the opposite side
that language is unique to only human beings and complex system of
communication rather than any communication type (Hill, 1974). The proponents
of this theory claim that there was a little use in non-human animals’
communication. One of the proponents is a famous linguist Noam Chomsky who
argues that it was the physical entity of human beings to speak this unique and
complex language on Earth (Hill, 1974).
Certainly, there are no
experiments which defend either continuity or discontinuity approach. That is
why it is very difficult to regard one of them more apparent. According to the
religious beliefs, human language is considered innate and human gift from God.
All experiments made to animals were unsuccessful; no animal was able to speak
the human language. Consequently, many people are likely to believe in the fact
that we are born with the ability to speak.
Of course, it is hard to
take one position as there are supportable evidences for each approach. Both
sides can be possible: humans are born with this ability to speak and language
is in human brain, but then it has been evolved due to the needs of life;
animal communication could impact to develop this human cognition. I believe
and somehow support discontinuity theory that language is innate rather than
learned from animal communication. May be, the beginning of the language was
easy with small number of words, and then possibly became more complex. It is
evident than language itself is like a living thing; it evolves, changes,
sometimes dies.
Besides these approaches, there
are debates concerning language diversity. Was there one uniform language or
more languages simultaneously? Monogenesis hypothesis holds that there was one
single, original language which was spread over different places and changed (Freedman
& Wang, 1996). It is more commonly believed point according to some
religious beliefs, for instance, it is said that the first language was that
God and Adam spoke. However, there is no evidence of which language was the
first; different scholars say diverse views on that. Second hypothesis is
polygenesis which supposes multiple linguistic origins (Freedman & Wang,
1996). Each of the original languages emerged in different places of the world
and changed, evolved.
Again, it is very difficult
to certainly exhibit the origin of human language, but everyone can think and
support their positions based on these discussed theoretical perspectives. My
viewpoint is that about 7000 languages today could not be originated and
divided from one proto-language. There were, might be, several original
languages as we have language families nowadays. Even though there is no true
data, polygenesis hypothesis seems more probable than monogenesis.
References:
Hill, J. (1974). Possible Continuity Theories of
Language, Language, 50(1), 134-150
Freedman,
D. & Wang, W. (1996). Language Polygenesis: A Probabilistic Model, Anthropological sciences, 104(2),
131-138
No comments:
Post a Comment