10 / prohibited discuss the origin ... (*)
ng The fascination that has always served in the man being able to speak, which distinguishes it radically the rest of the animal kingdom has produced countless speculations and has led many times to try to find a solution to the problem of the origin of language and what would be the oldest language in the world. In-elect, the divine concern for language, the power it gives to human beings and the same awareness of linguistic diversity displayed in all cultures, myths and legends have tried to explain its original gene, haloed by his condition ng gift of the gods or a God who created all things.
Several languages \u200b\u200bhave been considered at one point as the first language of humanity. And for centuries the problem of the origin or was erected in the focus of scholarly discussions. In the area under the influence of Judeo-Christian civilization is estimated, for example, that the Hebrew, because of its religious connotations, was the starting point of all languages. For this reason the discovery in 1797 of a wild child, who was raised in the countryside, isolated from human contact in the mountains of Aveyron (France), produced a sensation, because, according to the theories of the moment, thought I should speak Hebrew or other original language. The reality, however, was quite different: the child of Aveyron, far from speaking, only bursts ed in animal noises. The language of the last century (XIX) ended up discarding as incompatible with scientific objectivity the problem of the origin of language. And the Linguistic Society of Paris went further by explicitly forbidding in its own constitution (1866) that they were on the subject matter, refusing therefore to accept any communication in this regard. The other reason was that since the problem is beyond scientific observation, any discussion about it is just pure speculation. From the moment the interest of linguists focus on the functioning of languages, not to discover what was the origin of language.
 |
| The findings f or fossils and archeological remains or gicos provide insight into the evolution or mental n of ancestors of man and the possible time of Aparici or n the language. |
Since then attempts ng clarifications purely linguistic have been directed in three main directions: toward the study of primitive peoples, who are in their technique, but whose languages \u200b\u200bare usually very rich and evolved, so strictly speaking can not speak of primitive languages, "the reconstruction by comparison methods of the languages \u200b\u200bof culture, thanks to which leads to more complex stages and not very separate from existing forms; analysis, in short, the speech of children who learn an existing system, while the man has had to gradually creating your own code.
Two concrete sciences, the Biolog Sociolinguistics-ed and will serve in the first instance, of inestimable help to approach the roots of language.
 |
| In the work of French filmmaker é s Francois Truffaut, ñ The child or wild (1970), examines the problems of a little being grows away from human contact, and their subsequent inability to communicate. |
 |
| Although still we find people whose skills are very rudimentary, their languages \u200b\u200bare not so primitive, but often very complex and all the possibilities of expression. |
Science and ra language Ices: Biology and Sociolinguistics
For the Biolog ed know that the organization of the human brain is specifically adapted for language and that adult being the main linguistic devices are located in the left cerebral hemisphere. The study of brain structure, location of schools and its Speech Pathology, provides the basis to understand the mental evolution of man's ancestors, and if it is not possible to establish a theory the biological origin of language itself, however, allows us, through fossil findings, namely their age, which can be traced back millions of years. A comparative study of the speech organs, but not ta Apor solutions, at least tell us how they acquired or linguistic expression, ie why we use those sounds and not others. They have not missed in the field of biology attempts to explain: the imitation of natural sounds, this is onomatopoeia, that in all languages \u200b\u200bis negligible, the evolution from the screams of the ape, but, as already said, the language begins precisely where just the interjection, and the sounds that accompany the muscular effort, the expressive gesture or the collective work, but it seems that what may be checking out those sounds.
The sociolinguistics üística, meanwhile, highlights the social nature of language: indicates the need for contact, and especially the mutual support requirements required by the human being when living in community. Of these requirements gives rise to the language, we still know c ow, but we can imagine that the emergence of tools in the transmission of which must necessarily intervene learning the language, along with the study of brain structure, leads to the old, if not cause, of this enigma. The arbitrary linguistic sign is associated in this way the individual mind and collective tradition to develop over the long history of man in particular systems.
(*) Text taken from Wulff, Enrique (1981): Language and languages. Aula Abierta Salvat. Salvat Editores, SA Madrid, Spain.
0 comments:
Post a Comment