UNIT –II

LANGUAGE : ORIGIN
Humans have speculated about the origins of language throughout history. The Biblical myth of
the Tower of Babel is one such account; other cultures have different stories of how language arose.
Theories about the origin of language differ in regard to their basic assumptions about what language
is. Some theories are based on the idea that language is so complex that one cannot imagine it simply
appearing from nothing in its final form, but that it must have evolved from earlier pre-linguistic systems
among our pre-human ancestors. These theories can be called CONTINUITY-BASED THEORIES.
The opposite viewpoint is that language is such a unique human trait that it cannot be compared to anything
found among non-humans and that it must therefore have appeared suddenly in the transition from pre-
hominids to early man. These theories can be defined as DISCONTINUITY-BASED. Similarly, theories
based on the generative view of language pioneered by NOAM CHOMSKY 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.
Chomsky is one prominent proponent of a discontinuity-based theory of human language origins. He
suggests that for scholars interested in the nature of language, "talk about the evolution of the language
capacity is beside the point." Chomsky proposes that perhaps "some random mutation took place [...] and it
reorganized the brain, implanting a language organ in an otherwise primate brain." Though cautioning
against taking this story literally, Chomsky insists that "it may be closer to reality than many other fairy tales
that are told about evolutionary processes, including language."
Continuity-based theories are held by a majority of scholars, but they vary in how they envision this
development. Those who see language as being mostly innate, for example psychologist Steven Pinker,
hold the precedents to be animal cognition, whereas those who see language as a socially learned tool of
communication, such as psychologist Michael Tomasello, see it as having developed from animal
communication in primates: either gestural or vocal communication to assist in cooperation. Other
continuity-based models see language as having developed from music, a view already espoused
by Rousseau, Herder, Humboldt, and Charles Darwin. A prominent proponent of this view is
archaeologist Steven Mithen. Stephen Anderson states that the age of spoken languages is estimated at
60,000 to 100,000 years.

Language origin hypotheses

I cannot doubt that language owes its origin to the imitation and modification, aided by signs and gestures, of
various natural sounds, the voices of other animals, and man's own instinctive cries.
— Charles Darwin, 1871.
In 1861, historical linguist Max Müller published a list of speculative theories concerning the origins of spoken
language:
1. Bow-wow. The bow-wow or cuckoo theory, which Müller attributed to the German philosopher Johann
Gottfried Herder, saw early words as imitations of the cries of beasts and birds.
2. Pooh-pooh. The pooh-pooh theory saw the first words as emotional interjections and
exclamations triggered by pain, pleasure, surprise, etc.
3. Ding-dong. Müller suggested what he called the ding-dong theory, which states that all things have a
vibrating natural resonance, echoed somehow by man in his earliest words.
4. Yo-he-ho. The yo-he-ho theory claims language emerged from collective rhythmic labor, the attempt to
synchronize muscular effort resulting in sounds such as heave alternating with sounds such as ho.
5. Ta-ta. This did not feature in Max Müller's list, having been proposed in 1930 by Sir Richard
Paget.[37] According to the ta-ta theory, humans made the earliest words by tongue movements that
mimicked manual gestures, rendering them audible.
USES OF LANGUAGE
Most scholars today consider all such theories not so much wrong—they occasionally offer peripheral
insights—as naïve and irrelevant. The problem with these theories is that they are so narrowly
mechanistic. They assume that once our ancestors had stumbled upon the appropriate
ingenious mechanism for linking sounds with meanings, language automatically evolved and changed.
Language is the means by which humans learn, interact and bond. Both verbal and non-verbal forms of
language communicate subtle nuances that affect the meaning of words and phrases. Communication can be
categorized into three primary purposes for language: informative, expressive and directive.
Informative
The informative use of language involves information giving and receiving. The general assumption is that
the content is believable and valuable. For example, language is used to offer opinions, give advice, make
announcements, lecture, admonish, report news, solicit input or ask questions. Everyday conversations
center around information sharing.
Expressive
Language expresses and evokes ideas, thoughts and feelings. Expressive language may or may not include
any real information because the purpose of expressive use of language is to convey emotion. For example,
the expression “Yuck” connotes disgust, but the word itself isn't necessarily used to inform. Expressive
language in literature, music and the performing arts has the power to inspire and entertain.
Directive
Language is used to establish and maintain social order. Directive use of language establishes norms of
expected behavior in certain situations. Traffic signs, laws, rules and policies are among the common forms
of directive language that promote health and safety in society. “Eat your vegetables” is an example of
directive use of language used in informal communication.
Multiple Uses
In many cases, use of language serves multiple purposes. For example, the statement “Stop that” is both
directive and expressive. Yawning and uttering “I’m tired” is informative, expressive, and possibly directive
if used to imply that another person should leave because it's late.

HOCKETT’S “DESIGN FEATURES”)

Six things we have and they (ANIMALS) don’t .

In the last couple of postings I argued that animals — dogs, apes etc. — do not have language. Of course,
animals of various species have communication systems but these communication systems do not count as
language. Why? What is it that we, humans, have and they don’t?
Six properties (the so-called Hockett’s “design features”) have been said to characterize human language
and human language alone. These features are arbitrariness, reflexivity, displacement, productivity,
duality and cultural transmission. Let’s consider each one in turn.
1. ARBITRARINESS - As has been discussed first by the great Swiss linguist Ferdinand de
Saussure, linguistic signs (for simplicity, words) are arbitrary in that there is no intrinsic connection
between the sound of a word and its meaning. The sound sequence /haus/ is just as good for expressing
the concept ‘house’ as are the sequences /kaza/ (Italian), /dom/ (Russian), /ev/ (Turkish), /bait/ (Hebrew) and
many others.
Even the so-called onomatopeic words which are supposed to sound like what they represent —
like words for animal sounds — are conventionalized in language. For example, an “English-speaking” pig
“says” oink, whereas in German pigs “say” grunz. Some other languages have reduplicative words for pig
sounds: øf-øf in Danish, knor knor in Dutch, boo boo in Japanese, groin groin in French and khrju-khrju in
Russian.
In animal communication systems, signs are often non-arbitrary, for example, the loudness of the
danger signal corresponds to how close the predator is. We use such non-arbitrary symbols too, for example
as pictograms or road signs. So although we may loosely speak of the “road sign language”, to a linguist this
is not a language proper.
2. REFLEXIVITY The second important design feature of language is reflexivity. We humans can
use language to think and talk about language itself — which is exactly what we’ve been doing now. In
contrast, animals are not able to reflect on their communication system (s). As George Yule (2010: 11)puts
it: “Dogs aren’t barking about barking”.
3. DISPLACEMENT : The third design feature of human language is called displacement. Unlike
animals, humans can refer to past and future time and to other places. For example: I can tell you about
my trip to Paris 20 years ago or about the future trip there that I am planning. We can even talk about non-
existing and imaginary entities and locales, such as angels and fairies, Santa Claus and Superman,
Heaven and Hell. Neither Greek mythology nor Viking legends would have been possible without this
property of language. Nor would fiction be possible at all. Even the concept of ‘would’ is made possible
only by displacement: it signifies the state of affairs in a different world, similar to our real world but also
different from it in important respects. For example, the sentence If I were a Rothchild, I would donate all
my money to charity means that in a slightly different version of the world (one where I am very rich), I give
money to charity.
All of this is true of human language but not of animal communication systems, which are designed
exclusively for this moment, for the “here and now”. It cannot be used effectively to relate events that are far
removed in time and place. A dog cannot bark about that marrow bone you gave him yesterday or about the
cute little puppy who lives north of the town. In fact, they cannot manage “north of town” at all, but this is a
subject for a separate future posting. They do not have doggie heaven, but also no doggie hell.
Another thing that we can do because of displacement (and animals cannot) is LIE. After all, lying is in a
way talking about things that are not “here and now”. Dogs don’t lie — maybe that’s what makes them so
attractive to us.
But wait, I hear you saying, what about honeybees? Those honey bees that dance to tell their fellow
honey bees about the location of good nectar-bearing flowers? Can’t they “talk” about flowers they found
far away from the hive? Isn’t that animal “language” used beyond “here and now”. The answer is no. Even
honeybees, however sophisticated their communication system is, cannot “talk” about that delicious rose
bush north of the town that they visited last weekend. They cannot do displacement in time and as it turns
out they cannot do displacement in space either. All they can “share” is geocentric position of the flowers
with respect to the hive. However, remote the flowers are, they are indicated in relation to “here”.