th eorigen of languaje

1. Linguistics I
The First Theories of
Language

2. Linguistics I
It is an intriguing question, to which we may never have a complete answer: How
did we get from animal vocalization (barks, howls, calls...) to human language? So
when did language begin? At the very beginnings of the genus Homo, perhaps 4
or 5 million years ago? Before that? Or with the advent of modern man,
Cro-Magnon, some 125,000 years ago? Did the Neanderthal speak? We don't
know.
What was the first language? How did language begin—where and when? Until
recently, a sensible linguist would likely respond to such questions with a shrug
and a sigh. As Bernard Campbell states flatly in Humankind Emerging (Allyn &
Bacon, 2005), "We simply do not know, and never will, how or when language
began."

3. Linguistics I
It is hard to imagine a cultural phenomenon that is more
important than the development of language. And yet no
human attribute offers less conclusive evidence regarding its
origins.
The mystery, says Christine Kenneally in her book The First
Word, lies in the nature of the spoken word.

4. Linguistics
I
The absence of such evidence certainly hasn't discouraged
speculation about the origins of language. Over the centuries,
many theories have been put forward—and just about all of them
have been challenged, discounted, and often ridiculed. Each
theory accounts for only a small part of what we know about
language.
The origins of human language are a mystery. Most historians
believe that language began 150,000 years ago, while written
language appeared 6000 years ago.

5. Linguistics I
The Bow-Wow Theory
According to this theory, language began when our ancestors started imitating the natural
sounds around them. The first speech was onomatopoeic—marked by echoic words such
as moo, meow, splash, cuckoo, and bang.
What's wrong with this theory?
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.
“Language began as imitations of natural sounds -- moo, choo-choo, crash, clang,
buzz, bang, meow... This is more technically referred to as onomatopoeia or
echoism.”

6. Linguistics I
The Ding-Dong Theory
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.
What's wrong with this theory?
Apart from some rare instances of sound symbolism, there's
no persuasive evidence, in any language, of an innate
connection between sound and meaning.

7. Linguistics
I
The La-La Theory
The Danish linguist Otto Jespersen suggested that language
may have developed from sounds associated with love, play,
and (especially) song.
What's wrong with this theory?
As David Crystal notes in How Language Works (Penguin,
2005), this theory still fails to account for "the gap between
the emotional and the rational aspects of speech expression."

8. Linguistics
I
The Pooh-Pooh Theory
This theory holds that speech began with interjections—spontaneous
cries of pain ("Ouch!"), surprise ("Oh!"), and other emotions ("Yabba
dabba do!").
What's wrong with this theory?
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.“
Language began with interjections, instinctive emotive cries such as
oh! for surprise and ouch! for pain.

9. Linguistics I
The Yo-He-Ho Theory
According to this theory, language evolved from the grunts, groans,
and snorts evoked by heavy physical labor.
What's wrong with this theory?
Though this notion may account for some of the rhythmic features of
the language, it doesn't go very far in explaining where words come
from.
Language began as rhythmic chants, perhaps ultimately from the
grunts of heavy work (heave-ho!).