Introduction: The power of speech is probably the single most distinguishing characteristic that differentiates us from animals. The larynx or voice box in humans evolved some 350,000 years. Since that time, considering the variety of languages, dialects sounds and syllables that are spoken today, one can only imagine that the evolution of languages must have had a fascinating history.
Second Paragraph: List of Languages Bow-wow theory, pooh-pooh theory, ding-dong theory, yo-he-ho theory, ta-ta theory
Natural Sounds: In 1861, historical linguist Max Müller published a list of speculative theories concerning the origins of spoken language (Müller, F. M. 1996 [1861]. The theoretical stage, and the origin of language. Lecture 9 from Lectures on the Science of Language. Reprinted in R. Harris (ed.), The Origin of Language. Bristol: Thoemmes Press, pp. 7-41)
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. Bow-wow theories suggest that the first human languages developed as onomatopoeia, imitations of natural sounds.[2] The name "bow-wow theory" was coined by Max Müller, a philologist who was critical of the notion.[3] The bow-wow theory is largely discredited as an account of the origin of language,[2] though some contemporary theories suggest that general imitative abilities may have played an important role in the evolution of language. [Malle, Bertram F. (2002). "The relation between language and theory of mind in development and evolution"]
The bow-wow theory supposed that men formed habits of using the sounds made by animals, things or events to mean the respective animals, things and events and that these habits started them on the road to inventing other sounds as signs of animals, things or events. For various reasons this theory is discredited. Doubtless after man has language, he will often make the sounds that animals and things make, but it is doubtful how often he will do so in a languageless group. Possibly he will do so only accidentally as a part of his general vocal play. There might be little agreement in the ideas evoked in the rnernbers of a hurnan group by hearing the varying sounds which its various mernbers rnade when they thought of a dog, a cow, thunder and the like. Even if a group got a sufficient agreement in the case of forty or fifty sounds for these to be used cornmonly in the group, an advance by the addition of non-mirne,tic sounds as signs of things and events would be difficult. I f the rnimetic sounds remained fully mimetic, it might well be impossible. But the opponents of the bow-wow theory have not considered sufficiently the possibility that a human group might modify their vocabulary of rhiirnetic sounds by slurring, abbreviation and other processes that make speech easier for the speaker without losing the old meanings of animals, things and events in the hearer. If close imitations of a dog's barking, cock's crowing, baby's crying, lamb's bleating, etc., became conventionalized within a human group into sounds no more like the originals than bow-wow, cockadoodledoo, mama and bah-bah, or urr-urr, uk a duk a duk dulc, ma-na and buh-buh, that group could in a few generations progress to a set of sounds rnany of which would mean prirnarily certain anirmls or things and only secondarily or not at all the sound made by the respective animals and things. The group's vocabulary would all be about things that had distinctive sounds, but could be in the forrrl of sounds different from these and in some cases hardly suggestive of thern. The invention of a non-mimetic sound for some thing hitherto nameless would then be easier. The use of such an invention would, of course, spread somewhat slowly within the group and very slowly outside it to groups accustorned only to mimetic words. [Thorndike, E.L. (2 July 1943). "The origin of language"]
^^ in easy wording: * proposes that people imitated sounds they heard around them, thus creating first onomatopoeic words from which the rest of the language evolved. Conclusion: This theory seems to be supported by the fact that the majority of modern languages have onomatopeic expressions, it does not, however, explain how words for inanimate objects such as hills and rivers came to exist.
The bow-wow theory is largely discredited as an account of the origin of language, [2] though some contemporary theories suggest that general imitative abilities may have played an important role in the evolution of language Relatively few words are onomatopoeic, and these words vary from one language to another. For instance, a dog's bark is heard as au au in Brazil, ham ham in Albania, and wang, wang in China. In addition, many onomatopoeic words are of
recent origin, and not all are derived from natural sounds. [Richard Nordquist, Grammar and Composition Expert, Where does Language Come From?, www.about.com ]
Pooh-pooh. The Pooh-Pooh theory saw the first words as emotional interjections and exclamations triggered by pain, pleasure, surprise, etc. The basis for the “pooh-pooh” hypothesis holds true to the involuntary nature of human speech. Through emotional response, language and speech would have developed in tandem with human interaction and primitive emotional reactions. Such sounds as “wa wa wa” or “ha ha ha,” commonly used to denoted crying or pain and happiness or laughter, respectively, would then develop into a more unique and case-specific series of sounds in association with other emotions and interactions [Linguistic 101, professor Edward Vajda, Western Washington University] Example: emotions: a laugh, a shriek, a gasp, ouch Conclusion: The problem with this hypothesis, however, is that exclamations, such as the emotional responses that one might associate with these “pooh-pooh” phrases, are in fact dependent on language instead of a basis through which language can be created. For instance, the essence of emotional response for pain is “ouch” in English, “oi” in Russian and “eee” in Cherokee (Vajda). If there was a generalized emotional response that all people made independently of each other, then perhaps there would be some legitimacy to the argument. But those noises that we all do make based on the stimuli of sneezes or hiccups cannot demonstrate a common linguistic nature between peoples. [Linguistic 101, rofessor Edward Vajda, Western Washington University] No language contains very many interjections, and, Crystal points out, "the clicks, intakes of breath, and other noises which are used in this way bear little relationship to the vowels and consonants found in phonology.” [David Crystal notes in How Language Works (Penguin, 2005)]
Ding-Dong: 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. This theory, favored by Plato and Pythagoras, maintains that speech arose in response to the essential qualities of objects in the environment. The original sounds people made were supposedly in harmony with the world around them. [Richard Nordquist, Grammar and Composition Expert, Where does Language Come From?, www.about.com ]
The ding-dong theory assumed a mystical power of certain things to evoke certain sounds from men. Since each such sound was associated with the experience of the thing, it came to mean it. And since men were alike in their responses to things by: sounds, one of these sounds meant more or less the same thing to all in the group, and easily became a vehicle of communication. All the evidence is against the existence of any such mystical power, and only extremely strong evidence would induce any scientific student of psychology or of language to put any faith in so extremely unlikely an origin of language. [Thorndike, E.L. (2 July 1943). "The origin of language"] Some people, including the famous linguist Max Muller, have pointed out that there is a rather mysterious correspondence between sounds and meanings. Small, sharp, high things tend to have words with high front vowels in many languages, while big, round, low things tend to have round back vowels! Compare itsy bitsy teeny weeny with moon, for example. This is often referred to as sound symbolism. In linguistics, sound symbolism, phonesthesia or phonosemantics is the idea that vocal sounds or phonemes carry meaning in and of themselves. [The Origins of Language, Dr. C. George Boeree] Example: onomatopoeia = buzz, hum, drip, spray Conclusion:
Apart from some rare instances of sound symbolism, there's no persuasive evidence, in any language, of an innate connection between sound and meaning. Last sentence from the above extract
Yo-he-ho: 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. Yo-heave-ho theory on the other hand proposes that human language is a result of the first human sounds made by people taking part in some physical effort. At the dawn of civilisation when people worked in groups the grunts and groans they made while performing difficult manual tasks enabled them to develop a way of communicating which with time evolved into more elaborate form of conveying meaning. This idea emphasises a very important notion, namely social context crucial for the development and the use of language. Yo-heave-ho theory on the other hand proposes that human language is a result of the first human sounds made by people taking part in some physical effort. At the dawn of civilisation when people worked in groups the grunts and groans they made while performing difficult manual tasks enabled them to develop a way of communicating which with time evolved into more elaborate form of conveying meaning. This idea emphasises a very important notion, namely social context crucial for the development and the use of language. [Yule G. 1996. The study of language. Cambridge:CUP] Example: “Heave” , “ho” Conclusion: Though this notion may account for some of the rhythmic features of language, it doesn't go very far in explaining where words come from. [Richard Nordquist, Grammar and Composition Expert, Where does Language Come From?, www.about.com ]
Ta-ta: Ta-ta. This did not feature in Max Müller's list, having been proposed in 1930 by Sir Richard Paget. ( Paget, R. 1930. Human speech: some observations, experiments, and conclusions as to the nature, origin, purpose and possible improvement of human speech. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.) According to the ta-ta theory, humans made the earliest words by tongue movements that mimicked manual gestures, rendering them audible. As commonly seen in primates, hand gestures and body movement are important aspects of interaction and cooperation within societies. Originally hypothesized by Charles Darwin, though not necessarily supported by him, the “ta-ta” hypothesis states that language and the development of sound was generated to support the hand gestures and movements of the individual. So as to better demonstrate the meaning behind the gestures, these sounds progressed into more and more distinct words or combinations of sounds inevitably leading to speech patterns. Example: ta-ta is like waving goodbye with your tongue. Conclusion: Although plausible like many of the other hypothesis, the cultural roots of varying hand gestures suggests that this is most likely not the reason behind language. Where in some places nodding means “yes,” in others nodding means the opposite. Such distinct cultural differences implies that this is not a sound hypothesis. [Linguistic 101, professor Edward Vajda, Western Washington University] 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 [Arika Okrent, author of In the Land of Invented Languages].
Oral Gesture Source Many of our physical gestures, using body hands and face, are means of nonverbal communication and are used by modern humans, even with their developed linguistic skills. The "oral-gesture theory" proposes an extremely specific connection between physical and oral gesture involving a "specialized pantomime (哑剧) of the tongue and lips" (Sir Richard Paget, 1930). This theory goes further back in time when people used physical gestures to communicate their ideas. It is thought that over time they started to use not only their hands, but also movement of the mouth, lips and tongue which subsequently developed into speech as we know it. [Yule G. 1996. The study of language. Cambridge:CUP] People use some nonverbal communication when they speak. The oral-gesture source suggests that language started with the gestures that we use by our mouth and other speech organs. For example, we wave hands to say good-bye; we nod our heads to show our approval or to mean ‘yes’, we produce a sound by our tongue when we mean ‘no’. Example: For example, the movement of the tongue (oral gesture) in a ‘goodbye’ message is representative of the waving of the head or arm (physical gesture) for a similar message. Conclusion:
Physiological adaptation Physiological adaptation theory explains that physical features of human beings are good clues for their capacity for speech such as the human teeth that is upright and even in height and the human lips with its flexibility that is needed for sounds like p,b and w. Some of the physical aspects of humans that make the production of speech possible or easier are not shared with other creatures: Human teeth are upright and roughly even in height. Human lips have an intricate muscle interlacing. The human mouth is relatively small compared to other primates, can be opened and closed rapidly, and contains a smaller, thicker and more muscular tongue which can be used to shape a wide variety of sounds inside the oral cavity. In addition, unlike other primates, humans can close off the airway through the nose to create more air pressure in the mouth. The overall effect of these small differences taken 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 sounds produced through these different shapes. ^^ rewrite it ; The Study of Language by George Yule Research has theorised that the human larynx is positioned lower than monkeys** and that the longer cavity called pharynx*** acts as resonator. The human mouth is relatively small, can be opened and closed rapidly and contains a very flexible tongue. ** “Voice processing in human and non-human primates”, Pascal Belin 2006 *** The Study of Language by George Yule This theory also stated that the human brain lateralised, which is to have special functions in each of the two hemispheres. The left hemisphere for analytical, tool using, language and mathematics while the right hemisphere for holistic, music and visual-spatial skills. All languages require the organizing and combining of sounds or signs in specific constructions.
Divine Source It never fails that whenever human encounters something they could not fully comprehend, they attribute it to God or some supernatural power. In most religions there appears to be a divine source that provides humans with language. In attempts to rediscover this original, divine language a number of experiments (for example by order of Psammetichus 600 B.C. or James IV of Scotland 1500 A.D.) have been carried out to find the "Ursprache" （原始语）. However it seems that children with no access to human speech simply grow up with no language at all. NO SPEECH = NO LANGUAGE. There is the divine source theory which explains the belief in most religions that languages are provided by a divine source. The Christians and the Jews believe God created Adam and the language of Adam, which as name-giver (Gen 2:19), used it to name all living things although most Jewish authorities maintained that Hebrew was the language of God. The Hindus believe that language comes from the goddess Saravati, wife of Brahma, the creator of the universe who was later conflated with Vāc, the Hindu goddess of speech, or "speech personified".** ** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythical_origins_of_language History contains a number of anecdotes about people who attempted to discover the origin of language by experiment. The first such tale was told by Herodotus. He relates that the Egyptian pharaoh Psammetichus** (600 B.C.) had two new-born infants raised by a mute shepherd in order to see what language they would speak. When the children were brought before him, one of them said something that sounded to the Pharaoh like “bekos”, the Phrygian word for bread. From this Psammetichus concluded that the first language was Phrygian. King James V of Scotland is said to have tried a similar experiment: his children were supposed to have spoken Hebrew. ** A Dictionary of Psychology, Andrew M. Colman 2008 Conclusion:
Essay Conclusion: Most scholars today consider all such theories not so much wrong — they occasionally offer peripheral insights — but as comically naïve and irrelevant.[38][39]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.v
Bibliography: List of all references used
