The origin of language on earth is brief. Hypotheses about the origin of language. Theory of the sudden emergence of language
Among the many statements about the origin of language, two main groups can be distinguished: 1) biological theories, 2) social theories.
Biological theories explain the origin of language by the evolution of the human body - sensory organs, speech apparatus and brain. Within the framework of these theories, the emergence of language is considered as the result of the long-term development of nature. The one-time (divine) origin of language is rejected in them. Among biological theories, the two most famous are onomatopoeic and interjection.
Social theories of the origin of language explain its appearance by social needs that arose in labor and as a result of the development of human consciousness. TO social theories include the theory of the social contract, the working theory, and the Marxist doctrine of the emergence of language in humans.
Onomatopoeic theory. The onomatopoeic theory explains the origin of language by the evolution of the hearing organs that perceive the cries of animals (especially domestic ones). Language arose, according to this theory, as an imitation of animals (the neighing of horses, the bleating of sheep) or as an expression of an impression about a named object. Leibniz, for example, explaining the origin of words, believed that in Latin honey is named after met because it pleases the ear pleasantly, German words leben(live) and lieben(to love) indicate gentleness, a Lauf(run), Lowe(leo) - for speed. Humboldt was a proponent of this theory.
The onomatopoeic theory is based on two assumptions: 1) the first words were onomatopoeias, 2) the sound in a word is symbolic, the meaning reflects the nature of things.
Indeed, languages have onomatopoeic words and word prohibitions as a result of the identification of the sound of a word and its meaning. However, there are still few onomatopoeic words in the language and, most importantly, they are different in different languages, and in primitive languages there are no more of them than in developed languages. This can only be explained if we recognize that onomatopoeic words are the result of the development of language.
Onomatopoeic words have sounds and forms that already exist in the language. That's why a duck screams for a Russian quack-quack (quacks), for an Englishman quack, for the Frenchman kan-kan (sapsaper), and for the Dane pan-pan (rapper). The calling words that a person uses to address a domestic animal, such as a pig, duck, or goose, are also different.
(Digression on phonosemantic research.)
Interjection theory. The interjective (or reflex) theory explains the origin of language by the experiences that a person experiences. The first words, according to this theory, are involuntary cries, interjections, and reflexes. They emotionally expressed pain or joy, fear or hunger. In the course of further development, the cries acquired symbolic meaning, mandatory for all members of this community. Supporters of the reflex theory were Steital (1823-1899), Darwin, Potebnya.
If in the onomatopoeic theory the impetus was external world(animal sounds), then the interjection theory considered the inner world of a living being, its emotions, to be the stimulus for the appearance of words. Common to both theories is the recognition, along with sound language, of the presence of sign language, which expressed more rational concepts.
Onomatopoeic and interjection theories prioritize the study of the origin of the speaking mechanism, mainly in psychophysiological terms. Ignoring social factor in these theories led to a skeptical attitude towards them: the onomatopoeic theory began to be jokingly called the “woof-woof theory”, and the interjection theory - the “tfu-tfu theory”. And indeed, in these theories the biological side of the issue is exaggerated, the origin of language is considered exclusively in terms of the origin of speech. What is not taken into account with due attention is the fact that man and human society arise that are essentially different from the animal and its herd.
Social contract theory. Already Diodorus Siculus wrote: “Initially, people lived, they say, an unsettled life similar to animals, they went out randomly to pastures and ate tasty grass and tree fruits. When attacked by animals, need taught them to help each other, and, gathering together out of fear, they gradually began to recognize each other. Their voice was still meaningless and inarticulate, but gradually they moved on to articulate words and, having established symbols with each other for each thing, they created an explanation for everything that was understandable to them.”
This passage outlines the theory of the social contract: language is seen as a conscious invention and creation of people. In the 18th century it was supported by J. du Bellay and E.B. de Condillac, ASmit and J-J. Rousseau. Rousseau's theory of the social contract is associated with the division of human life into two periods - natural and civilized.
In the first period, man was part of nature and language came from feelings, passion. “The language of the first people,” wrote Rousseau, “was not the language of geometers, as is usually thought, but the language of poets,” since “passions aroused the first sounds of the voice.” Sounds initially served as symbols of objects that act on the ear; objects perceived by sight were depicted by gestures. However, this was inconvenient, and they began to be replaced by sentence sounds; an increase in the number of sounds produced led to the improvement of the speech organs. The “first languages” were rich in synonyms necessary to express the “richness of the soul” natural man. With the emergence of property and the state, a social agreement arose, rational behavior of people, words began to be used in more in a general sense. The language went from being rich and emotional to “dry, rational and methodical.” The historical development of language is seen as a decline, a regression.
There is no doubt that the awareness of language was gradual, but the idea that the mind controlled the people who deliberately invented the language is hardly reliable. “Man,” wrote V. G. Belinsky, “mastered the word before he knew that he owned the word; in the same way, a child speaks correctly grammatically, even without knowing grammar.”
Working theory. At the end of the 70s of the last century, the German philosopher L. Noiret put forward a working theory of the origin of language, or the theory of labor cries. This theory was supported by K. Bücher. L. Noiret rightly emphasized that “thinking and action were initially inseparable,” since before people learned to make tools, they tested the action of various natural objects on different objects for a long time.
When working together, shouts and exclamations facilitate and organize work activities. When women spin and soldiers march, they "like to accompany their work with more or less rhythmic exclamations." These cries, at first involuntary, gradually turned into symbols of labor processes. The original language was a set of verbal roots.
The theory of labor cries, in fact, turns out to be a variant of the interjection theory. The labor action is considered as parallel to the sound language - shouts, and the language may not accompany the labor action. In this approach, work, music and poetry are recognized as equivalent.
G.V. Plekhanov, reviewing K. Bücher’s book “Work and Rhythm,” criticizes such dualism, considering the thesis “opinions rule the world” to be incorrect, since “the human mind could not be the demiurge of history, because it itself is its product.” “The main cause of the socio-historical process is the development of productive forces.” Language acts as a condition and a tool, a cause and effect of the public. Naturally, man does not arise immediately, but through the long evolution of nature, as C. Darwin showed. There was a time when tools played the same insignificant role in the life of humanoid ancestors as a branch plays in the life of an elephant. However, as soon as a person becomes social, the development of the emerging relations “is carried out according to its own internal laws, the action of which accelerates or slows down the development of productive forces, which determines the historical movement of mankind.”
ORIGIN OF LANGUAGE
1. Theories of the origin of language.
2. Prerequisites for language formation.
3. Language as a function of the human body.
4. The nature of primitive language.
Theories of the origin of language.
The problem of the origin of language has two aspects: the origin of a specific language, for example Russian, and the origin of human language in general. The origin of a particular language has been scientifically proven for many languages of the world. The question of the origin of human language in general still exists in the form of hypotheses.
The formation of human speech occurred, according to some scientists, one and a half million, according to others, 2.5 million years ago. Modern science does not have reliable data on the process of formation of human speech. Scientific research has proven the extreme complexity of this problem. Scientists have become convinced that the formation of language presupposed many fundamental, biological, psychological and social prerequisites in the development of man and human society. In science, the problem of the origin of language, as a rule, is considered in unity with the problem of the origin of man himself and human thinking.
Theories of the origin of language can be philosophical and philological.
In philosophy, theories of the origin of language, based on data from various sciences, show the formation of man and society. They are aimed at explaining the role of language in human life and society and are designed to reveal the essence of language. Philological theories of the origin of language are usually constructed as hypotheses about the formation of linguistic facts and seek to genetically explain the structure of the language system.
1. Logosic theory of the origin of language.
In the mythology of any nation there are myths about the origin of language. These myths usually link the origin of language to the origin of people. The logosic theory of the origin of language arose in the early stages of the development of civilization and exists in several varieties: biblical, Vedic, Confucian. In a number of states it is sanctified by the authority of religion. In some states, such as China, logos theory is influential, but has no theological character. This is an idealistic theory. But reading ancient, ancient and medieval sources is impossible without knowledge of this theory of the origin of language.
In accordance with the logos theory, the origin of the world is based on the spiritual principle. The spirit influences matter, which is in a chaotic state, and creates, organizes its forms (geological, biological and social). The final act of creation of the spirit acting on inert matter is man.
To denote the spiritual principle, the terms “god”, “logos”, “tao”, “word” are used. The “Word” existed before the creation of man and directly controlled inert matter. In the biblical tradition, the bearer of the “word” is the one God. The first chapter of Genesis tells of the creation of the world in seven days. Every day creation was accomplished not by the hands of God, but by his word. The word, that is, a tool and energy, created the world from primary chaos. Evangelist John in the 1st century. thus defined the foundations of the logos theory: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. It was with God in the beginning. Everything came into being through Him.”
This energy and instrument, embodied in the word, are interpreted in basically the same way, although in different terms, in Confucianism and Hinduism. Besides divine origin, logosic theory explains the word as a human phenomenon. One of the acts of divine creativity is the creation of man. God gives man the gift of speech. In the Bible, the first man Adam gives names to the animals that God sends to him, but it also indicates that language was created by the patriarchs by agreement. There is no contradiction between these two statements from the point of view of logos theory. The fact is that the divine word, which created man, then becomes the property of man. A person begins to create words himself. At the same time, the elders agree or disagree to recognize what was invented and contribute to the spread of names between people. According to biblical concepts, this means that a word created by man by divine inspiration comes from man as a transmitter of divine providence. Thanks to the elders, names are approved and become the common property of the people.
Man, in accordance with the logosic theory of the origin of language, is an inert substance that may well make a mistake and, embodying divine providence, distort it by creating an erroneous name.
This became the source of dogmatic disputes and struggle between religions, opinions and sects. The history of antiquity and the Middle Ages is filled with these disputes. One founder of a religion rejects all others on the sole grounds that he prophesies “more perfectly” than others who have “distorted” divine providence. Dogmatic disputes become a form of ideological struggle, often developing into political movements and religious wars.
With this understanding of the nature of the word, there is no talk about the human mind, about trust in this mind. In logosic theory, the word rules over man. Prophetic and dogmatic views of the word had a huge influence on the literary thought of antiquity and the Middle Ages. They permeate the poetry and scientific writings of this time, law and morality are based on them, ancient and medieval philology is based on them.
Scientists do not share the position that language was directly given to people by God, that people received the name of living beings from Adam, and that the diversity of the world's languages came from the Babylonian confusion of languages that arose during the construction of the Tower of Babel. Although over the millennia separating the events described, the symbolic meaning of these legends may have been lost.
In this regard, the statement of academician sounds sensational. Natalya Petrovna Bekhtereva, a world authority in the field of neurophysiology and neuropathology, Lenin Prize laureate, head of the Brain Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Based on many years of studying human thinking and its relationship with language, N.P. Bekhtereva came to the conclusion that it is impossible to consider human thinking as a result of the evolution of the brain of higher animals: “All our knowledge about the brain suggests that man has nothing to do with this planet. WITH
Among the many statements about the origin of language, two main groups can be distinguished: 1) biological theories, 2) social theories.
Biological theories explain the origin of language by the evolution of the human body - sensory organs, speech apparatus and brain. Within the framework of these theories, the emergence of language is considered as the result of the long-term development of nature. The one-time (divine) origin of language is rejected in them. Among biological theories, the two most famous are onomatopoeic and interjection.
Social theories of the origin of language explain its appearance by social needs that arose in labor and as a result of the development of human consciousness. Social theories include the theory of the social contract, the working theory, and the Marxist doctrine of the emergence of language in humans.
Onomatopoeic theory. The onomatopoeic theory explains the origin of language by the evolution of the hearing organs that perceive the cries of animals (especially domestic ones). Language arose, according to this theory, as an imitation of animals (the neighing of horses, the bleating of sheep) or as an expression of an impression about a named object. Leibniz, for example, explaining the origin of words, believed that in Latin honey is called the word met, because it pleases the ear pleasantly, German words leben (live) and lieben (to love) indicate gentleness, a Lauf (run), Lowe (leo) - for speed. Humboldt was a proponent of this theory.
The onomatopoeic theory is based on two assumptions: 1) the first words were onomatopoeias, 2) the sound in a word is symbolic, the meaning reflects the nature of things.
Indeed, languages have onomatopoeic words and word prohibitions as a result of the identification of the sound of a word and its meaning. However, there are still few onomatopoeic words in the language and, most importantly, they are different in different languages, and in primitive languages there are no more of them than in developed languages. This can only be explained if we recognize that onomatopoeic words are the result of the development of language.
Onomatopoeic words have sounds and forms that already exist in the language. That's why a duck screams for a Russian quack-quack (quacks), for an Englishman kwak-kwak (quack), for the Frenchman kan-kan (sapsaper), and for the Dane pan- pan (rapper). The calling words that a person uses to address a domestic animal, such as a pig, duck, or goose, are also different.
(Digression on phonosemantic research.)
Interjection theory. The interjective (or reflex) theory explains the origin of language by the experiences that a person experiences. The first words, according to this theory, are involuntary cries, interjections, and reflexes. They emotionally expressed pain or joy, fear or hunger. In the course of further development, shouts acquired a symbolic meaning, obligatory for all members of a given community. Supporters of the reflex theory were Steital (1823-1899), Darwin, Potebnya.
If in the onomatopoeic theory the impetus was the external world (animal sounds), then the interjectional theory considered the inner world of a living being, its emotions, to be the stimulus for the appearance of words. Common to both theories is the recognition, along with sound language, of the presence of sign language, which expressed more rational concepts.
Onomatopoeic and interjection theories prioritize the study of the origin of the speaking mechanism, mainly in psychophysiological terms. Ignoring the social factor in these theories led to a skeptical attitude towards them: the onomatopoeic theory began to be jokingly called the “woof-woof theory”, and the interjection theory - the “tfu-tfu theory”. And indeed, in these theories the biological side of the issue is exaggerated, the origin of language is considered exclusively in terms of the origin of speech. What is not taken into account with due attention is the fact that man and human society arise that are essentially different from the animal and its herd.
Social contract theory. Already Diodorus Siculus wrote: “Initially, people lived, they say, an unsettled life similar to animals, they went out randomly to pastures and ate tasty grass and tree fruits. When attacked by animals, need taught them to help each other, and, gathering together out of fear, they gradually began to recognize each other. Their voice was still meaningless and inarticulate, but gradually they moved on to articulate words and, having established symbols with each other for each thing, they created an explanation for everything that was understandable to them.”
This passage outlines the theory of the social contract: language is seen as a conscious invention and creation of people. In the 18th century it was supported by J. du Bellay and E.B. de Condillac, ASmit and J-J. Rousseau. Rousseau's theory of the social contract is associated with the division of human life into two periods - natural and civilized.
In the first period, man was part of nature and language came from feelings, passion. “The language of the first people,” wrote Rousseau, “was not the language of geometers, as is usually thought, but the language of poets,” since “passions aroused the first sounds of the voice.” Sounds initially served as symbols of objects that act on the ear; objects perceived by sight were depicted by gestures. However, this was inconvenient, and they began to be replaced by sentence sounds; an increase in the number of sounds produced led to the improvement of the speech organs. The “first languages” were rich in synonyms necessary to express the “riches of the soul” of natural man. With the emergence of property and the state, a social agreement arose, rational behavior of people, and words began to be used in a more general sense. The language went from being rich and emotional to “dry, rational and methodical.” The historical development of language is seen as a decline, a regression.
There is no doubt that the awareness of language was gradual, but the idea that the mind controlled the people who deliberately invented the language is hardly reliable. “Man,” wrote V. G. Belinsky, “mastered the word before he knew that he owned the word; in the same way, a child speaks correctly grammatically, even without knowing grammar.”
Working theory. At the end of the 70s of the last century, the German philosopher L. Noiret put forward a working theory of the origin of language, or the theory of labor cries. This theory was supported by K. Bücher. L. Noiret rightly emphasized that “thinking and action were initially inseparable,” since before people learned to make tools, they tested the action of various natural objects on different objects for a long time.
When working together, shouts and exclamations facilitate and organize work activities. When women spin and soldiers march, they "like to accompany their work with more or less rhythmic exclamations." These cries, at first involuntary, gradually turned into symbols of labor processes. The original language was a set of verbal roots.
The theory of labor cries, in fact, turns out to be a variant of the interjection theory. The labor action is considered as parallel to the sound language - shouts, and the language may not accompany the labor action. In this approach, work, music and poetry are recognized as equivalent.
G.V. Plekhanov, reviewing K. Bücher’s book “Work and Rhythm,” criticizes such dualism, considering the thesis “opinions rule the world” to be incorrect, since “the human mind could not be the demiurge of history, because it itself is its product.” “The main cause of the socio-historical process is the development of productive forces.” Language acts as a condition and a tool, a cause and effect of the public. Naturally, man does not arise immediately, but through the long evolution of nature, as C. Darwin showed. There was a time when tools played the same insignificant role in the life of humanoid ancestors as a branch plays in the life of an elephant. However, as soon as a person becomes social, the development of the emerging relations “is carried out according to its own internal laws, the action of which accelerates or slows down the development of productive forces, which determines the historical movement of mankind.”
Marxist idea of the origin of language.
Both biological (natural-historical) and social (socio-historical) prerequisites played a role in the origin of language.
Among the first we will have to include the separation of the functions of the fore and hind limbs of our ancestors, highly developed apes, the freeing of the hand for work and the associated adoption of a straight gait; Biological factors include the high development of the brain in our ancestors, and their use of a certain “set” of inarticulate sound signals that served as the physiological basis for human sound speech.
About a million years ago, at the end of the Tertiary period of the Cenozoic (new) era, highly developed monkeys lived in herds in certain places of the Earth, scientifically called Australopithecus (or close to them). These monkeys, as can be judged from their fossil remains, walked on the ground (rather than climbed trees), and their forelimbs were used for grasping various objects. They had a shortened jaw, indicating an increase in the ability to produce sounds, a large brain, indicating the complication of its activities, and other signs that allow scientists to consider Australopithecus as a higher animal on the eve of transformation into a human.
In Australopithecus, we can assume only the rudiments of such hand movements, which will subsequently lead to labor operations. Australopithecus did not make tools, but used ready-made objects as tools for his work. But be that as it may, the great process of freeing the hand for labor actions began.
Scientists attribute the existence of ape-men (Pithecanthropus, Sinanthropus and the like) to the beginning of the Quaternary period of the Cenozoic era. The study of their fossil remains suggests that they knew how to make tools and adopted an upright gait (the latest archaeological data obtained during excavations in Africa allow us to hypothesize that the formation of ape-people and their still primitive language was even earlier than indicated here ).
Somewhat later than Pithecanthropus and Sinanthropus, Neanderthals lived, the predecessors of modern humans. Pithecanthropus, Sinanthropus, Neanderthals are primitive people who lived in herds, knew how to make primitive tools (from stone, bone and wood) and began to understand the world around them, and therefore the sound signals that they gradually improved, having received them from their ancestors These sound signals were not yet words in our understanding; they had not yet received either strict articulation or sufficient comprehension. But still, gradually and painfully long, the thought that had been forming began to break away from the concrete perception of the object and become associated with the sound signal, began to rely on it, and thereby gained the opportunity to generalize many objects that were homogeneous in some respects. At the same time, awareness of the goals and possible results of using sound signals also matured; in a word, in the process of life, in connection with the increasingly complex labor influence of man on the world of animals and plants around him, two powerful forces of the human collective were formed - language and thought.
At the end of the Stone Age (Neolithic) lived the Cro-Magnons, people of the modern type ( Homo sapiens – Homo sapiens), distant from us for a short period (on a geological time scale) - about 40 - 50 thousand years. The study of their fossil remains speaks volumes. These people were members of a primitive communal system with complex labor, social and family relationships. They had a well-developed brain, articulate speech, conceptual, abstract thinking.
Thus, hundreds of thousands of years passed before human speech signals were developed from the rudimentary inarticulate sounds of our ancestors.
The emergence of language required the influence of two important natural historical (biological) factors.
The first biological factor - freeing the monkey's forelimbs for work and straightening the gait - was necessary in the development of language because without it the transition to work, which began with the manufacture of tools for influencing nature, was impossible.
Pointing out that, under the influence of their lifestyle, the monkeys began to wean themselves from using their hands when walking and began to adopt an increasingly straight gait, Engels says: “This made a decisive step in the transition from ape to man."
The second biological factor in the development of language is the presence of sound signals in monkeys, the ancestors of humans. The study of modern highly developed monkeys has shown that they use certain “sets” (up to two or more dozen) of undifferentiated sounds, which they use as involuntary signals of their emotional states. The monkey signals feelings of joy, hunger, enmity, desire, pain, fear, pleasure and others with a more or less consistently defined sound or their inarticulate fusion. Moreover, as a rule, these sounds are used when the monkey is with other monkeys. It has been established that, along with sounds, monkeys also use pointing signals and gestures, involuntarily conveying their internal states with them.
It is natural to assume that our distant ancestors, similar to australopithecines, more developed than modern apes, had a larger supply of sound signals and used them more “intelligently”.
These sound signals of the ancestors were used by emerging people to gradually “organize” their language. Sound signals were gradually comprehended and turned into the first units of communication among members of the human collective, that is, into elements of speech. Our ancestors did not have any other “building material” from which to “make” the first words and statements.
Seeing the unusually large role of the release of the hand and the sound signals of monkeys in the emergence of language, Marxists argue that the decisive role in this belongs to work and the collective, society. According to Engels, “the development of labor necessarily contributed to a closer unity of members of society, since thanks to it, cases of mutual support and joint activity became more frequent, and the awareness of the benefits of this joint activity for each individual member became clearer. In short, the emerging people came to the point where they had need to say something each other. The need created its own organ: the undeveloped larynx of the monkey was slowly but steadily transformed through modulation into an increasingly developed modulation, and the organs of the mouth gradually learned to pronounce one articulate sound after another.”
By themselves, the biological prerequisites for human speech could not create it, because in addition to them, a powerful push was needed that could bring it to life, and this push turned out to be work and the need for communication continuously generated by it. But work, from its very origins to the present day, has been work in a team, in society and for society. It requires the coordination of the working efforts of many people, it requires the organization and distribution of their responsibilities, that is, it requires, first of all, the exchange of thoughts, communication through language. Making fire, hunting an elephant, fishing in ancient times, or producing synthetic fibers and electronic devices in our time equally require the coordination and organization of the labor efforts of many team members.
However, there is no need to imagine the matter in such a way that there were some periods of time between the emergence of labor, language and thinking. Labor, language and thought were formed simultaneously, in unity and interaction with each other, in unity and interaction they are still developing. The leading force of this trinity was and remains labor. The development of tools, the enrichment of labor skills, the expansion of the sphere of application of human labor efforts - all this forced human thought to work more intensively and improved human consciousness. But the strengthening of the activity of thought, the improvement of consciousness led the language forward, enriched and clarified the system of its meanings, and influenced the totality of its formal elements.
The development and improvement of thought and speech had the opposite effect on labor, made it more effective and precise, led to the creation of new tools, the discovery of new materials, and a change in the sphere of application of labor efforts. But the development of labor again influenced thought and speech. Thus, for tens and hundreds of thousands of years, the mutually stimulating influence of labor, thought and language on each other has been realized. This is the picture of the emergence of language accepted by Marxist science (a major role in substantiating Marxist views on the emergence of language was played by the work of F. Engels “The Role of Labor in the Process of Transformation of Ape into Man”).
(A digression on the question: Can modern apes turn into humans? Laws of the pack theory.)
The problem of the origin of language is one of the most mysterious problems both for linguistics and for a number of biological and social sciences. Modern science is not able to give a direct answer to this question. Therefore the problem glottogenesis (Greek γλώσσα language, γήνεσις origin), as well as anthropogenesis (Greek άνθροπος man) in general, is solved mainly with the help of hypotheses. Let's list the main ones.
1) Onomatopoeic (onomatopoeic) hypothesis (onomatopoeia: Greek όνομα name, ποείν to create). Democritus and Plato were among the first to express it. In one form or another, it is contained in everyday ideas about language, and in some concepts of later eras. In accordance with the hypothesis about the onomatopoeic nature of the first words of human language, a person in early periods During his development, he imitated the sounds of the surrounding world: the cries of birds, animals, the sound of water, thunder, etc. This hypothesis, which is true for some (very few) words, should still be regarded as very naive. Indeed, there are not many onomatopoeic words ( peek-a-boo, cuckoo, woof-woof, bang, fuck and so on.). Moreover, both in the languages of primitive peoples and in the languages of modern developed societies, there are approximately the same number of them, although this theory should have predicted them large quantity in the languages of primitive societies.
This theory is completely destroyed if we compare the onomatopoeia of different languages: English. bow-wow, to bark not at all similar to Russian. woof-woof, bark, and even more so bark. A consistent supporter of this theory would have to admit that English and Russian dogs belong to different breeds. But what about Russian dogs that don’t bark, A yapping, They say bang-bang? Finally, what to do with the rest of the words that do not exhibit onomatopoeic properties, because there are much more of them, and any theory is verified (tested), in particular by assessing its explanatory power (how much it can explain facts, including all new and new). Those who continue to persist can be offered to conduct a phonetic, acoustic, spectral and any other sound analysis, for example, a cat and a person speaking meow(this onomatopoeia is most similar in English and Russian). But even comparing the onomatopoeias themselves Russian. meow and English miaou, we will discover units of the sound system of a particular language (phonemes) that are already present in it, and not borrowed from the cat. An Englishman may understand you if you tell him meow(less likely to be understood if your phrase is Bow-wow), and the cat certainly won’t understand you. Thus, the onomatopoeic hypothesis as a theory of the origin of language cannot be considered valid.
2) Interjection hypothesis. Proponents of this hypothesis were the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus and biologist Charles Darwin, linguists Wilhelm von Humboldt and A.A. Potebnya. In this case, the primary impetus for the creation of words was not the external world, but the internal emotional states of a person. At the same time, a person expressed emotional states not only with the help of sounds, but also with the help of gestures. Over the course of evolution, sound language improved, and sign language played a more auxiliary role.
Like the onomatopoeic theory, the interjection theory does not explain much in language, although the role of gesture in human speech behavior is very significant. Because of its limitations, the onomatopoeic theory was jokingly nicknamed the “woof-woof theory,” and the interjection theory, the “pah-pah theory.” One of the shortcomings of the above theories was the exaggeration of the purely biological aspect of the origin of language. Actually, they studied the origin of the mechanism of speaking and the association of external impressions and internal experiences with linguistic signs.
3) Hypothesis of instinctive labor cries added, on the one hand, the activity aspect (thinking and action were initially inseparable), and on the other, the social aspect (labor cries during teamwork became symbols of labor processes, the proto-language was a set of verbal roots).
4) Social contract hypothesis, which viewed language as a conscious invention and creation of people, approved by an agreement between them. This theory gained particular popularity in the rationalistic 18th century (Etienne Bonnot de Condillac, Adam Smith, Jean-Jacques Rousseau). Rousseau divided the life of mankind into two periods: natural and civilized. In the first period, man was a part of nature, and language originated from feelings: “passions evoked the first sounds of the voice,” which then became symbols of objects that act on the ear; objects affecting vision were indicated by gestures. With the advent of property and the state, language became less emotional, more “dry, rational and methodical,” which meant for Rousseau his regression. The rational behavior of people allegedly caused the emergence of social agreements regarding language.
5) The theory of the origin of language from common labor activity. Development of language in the process of social production activities were also emphasized by the German philosopher, one of the founders of Marxism, Friedrich Engels: work and then articulate speech gradually transformed the monkey’s brain into the human brain: “The organs of the mouth gradually learned to pronounce one articulate sound after another.” Labor, language and consciousness (thinking) developed simultaneously, in interaction. Awareness of the benefits of joint activity for each individual member of society contributed to a closer unity of the primitive labor collective, the emergence of a need to say something to each other.
6) Cultural-historical hypothesis. Since the 20s of the 20th century, the views of the Soviet psychological school. Problems cognitive development man, glottogenesis and cultural development are fundamental to the school of L.S. Vygotsky and his associates: A.R. Luria, A.N. Leontiev and others. Within the framework of their developed cultural-historical psychology it was shown how external signs for control social behavior and become memories and “signs for oneself.”
“The language of primitive man, essentially speaking, is a double language: on the one hand, the language of words, on the other, the language of gestures,” believe Vygotsky and Luria. One language explains another, one language influences another. This double sign goes through three stages of development:
A proper name indicating an individual object;
Generic name of a complex or group of objects;
Abstract name of the concept.
There are many more various theories origin of the language. As we see, exaggerating the role of either the biological or social aspect does not give a complete picture of glottogenesis.
Of course, there are a number of hypotheses about the origin of language, but none of them can be confirmed by facts due to the enormous remoteness of the event in time. They remain hypotheses because they cannot be observed or reproduced experimentally.
Religious theories
In religions different nations a hypothesis was reflected that said that language was created by God, Gods or Divine sages.
The second chapter of the Bible (Old Testament) says:
"And the Lord God took the man whom he had created, and put him in the Garden of Eden, to cultivate it and keep it. And the Lord God said: It is not good for the man to be alone; let us make him a helper suitable for him. Out of the earth the Lord God formed all the animals of the field and all the birds of the air, and brought them to the man, to see what he would call them, and that whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. there was no helper like him found for the man. And the Lord God brought a deep sleep upon the man, and when he fell asleep, he took one of his ribs, and covered the place with flesh. And the Lord God made a wife from the rib he had taken from the man. brought her to man" (Genesis 2:15-22).
According to the Koran, Adam was created by Allah from dust and “sounding clay.” Having breathed life into Adam, Allah taught him the names of all things and thereby elevated him above the angels" (2:29)
However, later, according to the Bible, God punished the descendants of Adam for their attempt to build a tower to heaven with a variety of languages:
“The whole earth had one language and one speech...And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men were building. And the Lord said: Behold, there is one people, and they all have one language; and this is what they began to do, and they will not deviate from what they planned to do. Let us go down further, and there we will confuse their language, so that one does not understand the speech of the other. And the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth; and they stopped building the city. Therefore the name was given to it: Babylon; because he mixed it up there. The Lord is the language of all the earth, and from there the Lord scattered them throughout all the earth (Genesis 11:5-9).”
In one of the discussions about religious theory, there was very much in my opinion, good idea: “The Day of Pentecost, or Trinity Day, deserves to become, in addition to its religious significance, the Day of the Linguist or Translator.”
The text of the Bible says nothing about what language was spoken from Adam to Noah. Attempts by commentators to “prove” that it was this or that language known to them led nowhere. The "language of Adam" remained a mystery. Finally a conclusion was reached consistent with modern science: ancient language humanity - not one of the known languages, but some other one, closely connected with nature.
Scientists of the late Middle Ages believed that the “mixing of a single language” was carried out by God not in “secret ways inaccessible to our understanding,” but according to certain laws. Therefore, based on existing languages, it is possible to restore the primary language. This opinion is also consistent with modern science.
For more than one millennium there has been a theory of the origin of all languages of the world from one source. It was called the theory of linguistic monogenesis (from the Greek monos - “one” and Latin genesis - “origin”. If earlier this theory could be believed or not believed, then in the 20th century it is being proven.
Ancient hypotheses
Basics modern theories The origins of language were laid down by ancient Greek philosophers. According to their views on the origin of the language, they were divided into two scientific schools - supporters of “Fusey” and adherents of “Theseus”.
Supporters natural origin names of objects (tskhuei - Greek by nature), in particular, Heraclitus of Ephesus (535-475 BC), believed that names were given by nature, since the first sounds reflected the things to which the names correspond. Names are shadows or reflections of things. The one who names things must reveal the correct name created by nature, but if this fails, then he only makes noise.
Names come from establishment, according to custom, stated adherents of establishing names by agreement, agreement between people (Jehu - Greek by establishment). These included Democritus from Abdera (470/460 - first half of the 4th century BC) and Aristotle from Stagira (384-322 BC). They pointed out many inconsistencies between a thing and its name: words have several meanings, the same concepts are denoted by several words. If names were given by nature, it would be impossible to rename people, but, for example, Aristocles with the nickname Plato (“broad-shouldered”) went down in history.
Supporters of the “Theseus” argued that the names are arbitrary, and one of them, the philosopher Dion Cronus, even called his slaves with conjunctions and particles (for example, “But after all”) to confirm that he was right.
To this, the supporters of “fusey” responded that there are correct names and names given incorrectly.
"Stoics"
Representatives of the philosophical school of the Stoics, in particular Chrysippus of Soli (280-206), also believed that names arose from nature (but not from birth, as the supporters of the Fusei believed). According to them, some of the first words were onomatopoeic, while others sounded like they appealed to the senses. For example, the word honey (mel) sounds pleasant, since honey is tasty, and the cross (crux) sounds harsh, because people were crucified on it (Latin examples are explained by the fact that these views of the Stoics came to us in the transmission of the writer and theologian Augustine ( 354-430). Further words appeared from associations, transfer by contiguity (piscina - “pool” from piscis - “fish”), by contrast (bellum - “war” from bella - “beautiful”). they can be established through research.
First experiments and scientific hypotheses
Also in Ancient Egypt people raised the problem of the origin of language.
When Psammetichus ascended the throne, he began to collect information about which people were the most ancient... The king ordered two newborn babies (from ordinary parents) to a shepherd to raise among a herd of [goats]. By order of the king, no one was to utter a single word in their presence. The babies were placed in a separate empty hut, where at a certain time the shepherd brought the goats and, after giving the children milk, did everything else that was necessary. This is what Psammetichus did and gave such orders, wanting to hear what the first word would fall from the lips of the babies after the inarticulate babble of children. The king's command was carried out. So the shepherd acted on the orders of the king for two years. One day, when he opened the door and entered the hut, both babies fell at his feet, stretching out their little hands and saying the word “bekos”... When Psammetichus himself also heard this word, he ordered to ask which people and what exactly they call the word “bekos”. , and learned that this is what the Phrygians call bread. From this the Egyptians concluded that the Phrygians were even older than themselves. At the same time, the Hellenes convey that there are still many nonsense stories... that Psammetichus ordered the tongues of several women to be cut out and then gave them the babies to raise. This was the first linguistic experiment in history, which was followed by others, not always so cruel, although in the 1st century AD. Quintilian, a Roman teacher of rhetoric, already stated that “based on the experience of raising children in the deserts with dumb nurses, it was proven that these children, although they uttered some words, could not speak coherently.” This experiment was repeated in the 13th century by the German Emperor Frederick II (children died), and in the 16th century, James IV of Scotland (the children spoke in Hebrew - obviously the purity of experience was not observed) and Khan Jalaluddin Akbar, ruler of the Mughal Empire in India (the children spoke with gestures).
Hypotheses of modern times
*The theory of the origin of sounding speech from gestures
Psychologist Michael Corballis revives the theory of the origin of sounding speech from gestures.
When human ancestors began to walk on two legs, their forelimbs - arms - were freed, and this made it possible to gesture. In addition, straightened people began to look at each other's faces, and facial expressions began to play a greater role in communication. But then people began to make tools, and their hands were busy - then, according to Corballis, the main burden fell on facial gestures (and the exclamations accompanying them). As a result, gestures gradually shifted inside the mouth - they turned into articulation of linguistic sounds. Corballis even names the approximate time when this happened - about 40 thousand years ago, during the period of the Upper Paleolithic revolution. Rock paintings, bone needles, jewelry, new stone processing technologies - a huge number of cultural innovations arose and spread in that era. initial speech linguistics gesture
According to Corballis, one of these cultural innovations was sound language. This language turned out to be better than sign language, and therefore the people who spoke it were able to displace their predecessors.
*Engels' labor hypothesis
Particular attention should be paid to Engels' labor theory.
In connection with the labor theory of the origin of language, one should first of all mention the unfinished work of F. Engels “The Role of Labor in the Process of Transformation of Ape into Man.” In the "Introduction" to "Dialectics of Nature" Engels explains the conditions for the emergence of language:
“When, after a thousand-year struggle, the hand finally differentiated from the legs and a straight gait was established, then man separated from the monkey, and the foundation was laid for the development of articulate speech...” In human development, upright gait was a prerequisite for the emergence of speech, and a prerequisite for the expansion and development of consciousness .
The revolution that man brings into nature consists, first of all, in the fact that human labor is different from that of animals - it is labor using tools, and, moreover, manufactured by those who must own them, and thereby progressive and social labor . No matter how skilled architects we consider ants and bees, they do not know what they are saying: their work is instinctive, their art is not conscious, and they work with the whole organism, purely biologically, without using tools, and therefore there is no progress in their work .
The first tool of man was the freed hand; other tools developed as additions to the hand (stick, hoe, rake); more later man shifts the burden of labor onto the elephant. A camel, a horse, and finally he controls them. Appears technical engine and replaces animals.
In short, the emerging people came to the point where they needed to say something to each other. Need created its own organ: the undeveloped larynx of the monkey was slowly but steadily transformed through modulations into increasingly developed modulations, and the organs of the mouth gradually learned to pronounce one articulate sound after another." Thus, language could only arise as a collective property necessary for mutual understanding. But not as an individual property of this or that incarnated individual.
F. Engels presents the general process of human development as the interaction of labor, consciousness and language:
“First, work, and then, along with it, articulate speech were the two most important stimuli, under the influence of which the monkey’s brain gradually turned into the human brain...” “The development of the brain and the feelings subordinate to it, an increasingly clear consciousness, the ability to abstraction and inference, had reverse action to work and to language, giving both more and more new impetuses to further development" “Thanks to the joint activity of the hand, speech organs and brain, not only in each individual, but also in society, people have acquired the ability to perform more and more complex operations, set ever higher goals for yourself and achieve them.”
The main provisions arising from Engels’ teaching on the origin of language are as follows:
- 1) The question of the origin of language cannot be considered outside the origin of man.
- 2) The origin of language cannot be scientifically proven, but only more or less probable hypotheses can be constructed.
- 3) Linguists alone cannot solve this issue; thus, this question is subject to resolution by many sciences (linguistics, ethnography, anthropology, archeology, paleontology and general history).
- 4) If language was “born” along with man, then there could not be a “languageless man.”
- 5) Language appeared as one of the first “signs” of a person; without language a person could not be a person.
- 6) If “language is the most important means of human communication” (Lenin), then it appeared when the need for “human communication” arose. Engels says this: “when the need arose to say something to each other.”
- 7) Language is designed to express concepts that animals do not have, but it is the presence of concepts along with language that distinguishes humans from animals.
- 8) The facts of language, to varying degrees, from the very beginning must possess all the functions of real language: language must communicate, name things and phenomena of reality, express concepts, express feelings and desires; without this, language is not “language.”
- 9) Language appeared as a sound language.
This is also discussed by Engels in his work “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State” (Introduction) and in his work “The Role of Labor in the Process of Transforming Ape into Man.”
Consequently, the question of the origin of language can be resolved, but by no means on the basis of linguistic data alone.
These solutions are hypothetical in nature and are unlikely to turn into theory. Nevertheless, this is the only way to solve the question of the origin of language, if we are based on real data from languages and on the general theory of the development of society in Marxist science.
*Biological hypothesis
Language is a natural organism, arises spontaneously, has a certain lifespan and dies as an organism. This hypothesis was put forward by the German linguist August Schleicher (1821-1868) under the influence of Darwinism, that is, the doctrine that determines the leading role of natural selection in biological evolution. But the first roots of words arose, in his opinion, as a result of onomatopoeia.
*Production activity as the basis of the origin of man, society and language
Despite the recognition of various factors that influenced the formation of a person and his language, the formulation of the question is that of all these factors, production activity is recognized as the leading one. People, creating the necessary means of life, reproduce not only themselves, but material life itself, which determines the way of life.
Making tools and using them are two mandatory components of human labor activity. Moreover, both the first and second required not only physical, but also mental action; Before starting to make a tool, the ancestor had to imagine it mentally: its purpose (chop, beat), its shape (chop), the sequence of manufacturing operations.
Since the set of tools of labor of the primitive hunter was limited, the possession of tools required developed skills to use them, coordination and sequence of movements during work. Group hunting requires imagination and collective action. The necessity and risk of exploring new hunting and gathering places gave new knowledge and new experience.
Using, for example, a stick and a stone to fight surrounded by nature, primitive people learned to use them constantly, distinguishing them from other objects. Instinct, realized in general activity, turns into human consciousness; it arises only from need, from the urgent need to communicate with other people. Consequently, the communicative essence of language (the need to say something to each other) is determined precisely by the fact that language arises in society, in the process of production activity. Cooperative activity leads to the fact that people begin to jointly master objects of nature and created tools, which receive names.
The sound complex becomes the same public property as a stone or a dog turns into a word. Its signs are: 1) designation of some social need; 2) name general idea; 3) constant connection in the creation of a sound complex and its meaning. Thanks to its generalizing function, the word gradually begins to designate objects that are absent. The word becomes a component of a person’s mental activity, like his sensory nature.
*Logosic theory
This theory arose in the early stages of the development of civilization and exists in several varieties: biblical, Vedic, Confucian. In accordance with the objective idealism of the logos theory, the origin of the world is based on the spiritual principle. The spirit acts on matter, which is in a chaotic state, and creates and organizes its forms. The final act of creation of the spirit acting on inert matter is man. Denoting the spiritual principle, the ancients used the terms “god”, “logos”, “tao”, “word”, etc. The “Word” existed before the creation of man and directly controlled inert matter. In the biblical tradition, the most ancient of those that have reached us, the bearer of the “word” is a single god. The first chapter of the Book of Genesis, which opens the Bible, tells about the creation of the world in seven days. Every day creation was accomplished not by the hands of God, but by his word. The word (tool and energy) created the world from primary chaos. In addition to its divine origin, the logos theory explains the word as a human phenomenon. One of the acts of divine creativity is the creation of man. God gives the gift of speech to man. In the Bible, the first man Adam gives names to the animals brought to him by God, but it also indicates that language was created by the patriarchs by agreement. According to biblical concepts, this means that a word created by man by divine inspiration comes from man in the form of a name.
Thanks to the elders, names are approved and become the common property of the people. This scheme for the creation and distribution of names is developed in detail by Plato in the dialogue Cratylus. In accordance with Plato's thought, the creator of the name is the onomatothet - the creator of the name, who transmits the name he created to the dialecticians - persons discussing the merits of the name, and they, in turn, transmit the names to the masters of specific arts who use the names.
· Onomatopoeic theory
Leibniz (1646-1716) tried to substantiate the principles of onomatopoeic theory in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. The great German thinker reasoned this way: there are derivative, later languages, and there is a primary, “root” language, from which all subsequent derivative languages were formed. According to Leibniz, onomatopoeia took place primarily in the root language, and only to the extent that “derived languages” further developed the foundations of the root language, they also developed the principles of onomatopoeia. To the same extent that derivative languages deviated from the root language, their word production turned out to be less and less “naturally onomatopoeic” and more and more symbolic. Leibniz also attributed some sounds to a connection with quality. True, he believed that the same sound can be associated with several qualities at once. Thus, the sound l, according to Leibniz, can express something soft (leben - to live, lieben - to love, liegen - to lie down), and something completely different. For example, in the words lion (lion), lynx (lynx), loup (wolf), the sound l does not mean something tender. Here, perhaps, a connection is found with some other quality, namely with speed, with running (Lauf). Accepting onomatopoeia as the principle of the origin of language, as the principle on the basis of which the “gift of speech” arose in man, Leibniz rejects the meaning of this principle for the subsequent development of language. The disadvantage of the onomatopoeic theory is the following: supporters of this theory view language not as a social phenomenon, but as a natural one.
· The theory of the emotional origin of language and the theory of interjections
Its most important representative was JJ Rousseau (1712-1778). In his treatise on the origin of languages, Rousseau wrote that “the passions aroused the first sounds of the voice.” According to Rousseau, “the first languages were melodious and passionate, and only later did they become simple and methodical.” According to Rousseau, it turned out that the first languages were much richer than the subsequent ones. But civilization has spoiled man. That is why language, and according to Rousseau’s thoughts, deteriorated from being richer, more emotional, more immediate, and becoming dry, rational and methodical.
Rousseau's emotional theory received a unique development in the 19th and 20th centuries and became known as the theory of interjections.
One of the defenders of this theory, the Russian linguist Kudryavsky (1863-1920), believed that interjections were the original first words of a person. Interjections were the most emotional words in which primitive man invested different meanings depending on a particular situation. According to Kudryavsky, in interjections sound and meaning were still inextricably linked. Subsequently, as interjections turned into words, sound and meanings diverged, and this transition of interjections into words was associated with the emergence of articulate speech.
· Sound Cry Theory
This theory arose in the 19th century in the works of vulgar materialists (Germans Noiret, Bucher). It boiled down to the fact that language arose from shouts that accompanied collective work. But these labor cries can only be a means of rhythmizing labor, they do not express anything, not even emotions, but are only external, technical means at work.
· Social contract theory
Since the mid-18th century, the theory of social contract emerged. The essence of this theory is that in later stages of language development it is possible to agree on certain words, especially in the field of terminology.
But it is quite obvious that, first of all, in order to “agree on a language”, one must already have a language in which to “agree”.
· Human origins of language
The German philosopher Herder spoke about the purely human origin of language.
Herder believed that human language arose not for communication with other people, but for communication with oneself, for awareness of one’s own self. If a person lived in complete solitude, then, according to Herder, he would have a language. Language was the result of "a secret agreement which the soul of man made with itself."
There are also other theories about the origin of language. For example, the theory of gestures (Geiger, Wundt, Marr). All references to the presence of supposedly purely “sign languages” cannot be supported by facts; Gestures always act as something secondary for people who have a sound language. There are no words among gestures; gestures are not associated with concepts.
It is also unlawful to deduce the origin of language from analogies with the mating songs of birds as a manifestation of the instinct of self-preservation (C. Darwin), especially from human singing (Rousseau, Jespersen). The disadvantage of all the theories listed above is that they ignore language as a social phenomenon.
· Cultural hypothesis
As a prerequisite, this hypothesis sees the presence of an embryonic language already in our animal ancestors (prehumans), the origin of which can be explained from the standpoint of the interjection hypothesis. The essence of the cultural approach to solving the problem of glottogenesis is to consider this problem in the context of the question of the origin of culture as a whole. The basis for this approach can be the fact that language is the most important component of culture.
We can assume that language was created by our ancestors according to the same models that they used to make any other cultural products - stone tools, darts for hunting, etc. Our ancestor directed the same type of energy that he directed to the embryonic language and for any other cultural product. This energy should be called transformative, creative, culture-creating, actually human.
The advantage of the cultural hypothesis about the origin of language is that it fits the problem of glottogenesis not only into cultural genesis, but into evolutionary process in general, since cultural genesis would not have become possible if it had not been preceded by a multi-million-year process of physiogenesis, biogenesis and psychogenesis. Modern man, possessing the language of high culture, is the result of this process and the subsequent process of inculturation of our ancestors, their humanization, or hominization.
A.N. spoke beautifully about cultural genesis. Leontyev: “A person is not born endowed with the historical achievements of mankind. Each individual person learns to be human. To live in society, what nature gives him at his birth is not enough for him. He must still master what has been achieved in the process of historical development of human society. The achievements of the development of human generations are embodied not in him, not in his natural inclinations, but in the world around him - in the great creations of human culture. Only as a result of the process of appropriating these achievements by a person does he acquire truly human properties and abilities; this process, as it were, puts him on the shoulders of previous generations and raises him high above the entire animal world.”
Glottogenesis (the origin and development of language) is one of the most important components of cultural genesis as a whole, since language is one of the most important products of culture (along with its other products - religion, science, art, morality, etc.). Each of the cultural products, despite its originality, evolved thanks to the same type of human energy - culture-building (or creative, creative).
So, the essence of the cultural approach to the question of the origin of language is to consider this question in the same context with the problem of the origin of culture as a whole. The basis for this approach is the fact that language is one of the components of culture, and therefore, the question of the origin of language is similar to the question of the origin of culture as a whole.
Literary language is the result of centuries-old cultural and normative processing of the national language as a whole. He is the pinnacle of his evolution. But undoubtedly, it would have been impossible if the language had not developed along with the culture of its speakers as a whole. The development of language was influenced by the development of science, art, morality, etc. All this suggests that when deciding the question of the origin of a language and its literary-normative evolution, the researcher must deal with issues related to the origin and development of culture as a whole.
