Abstract
All theories regarding the origins of language in modern humans share the following premises: 1) there is an innate mechanism/module/hierarchical structure in the (unique) human brain which allows for both the acquisition and processing of language; 2) the ability to physically produce vowel sounds separates modern humans from both extinct hominid species and extant nonhuman primate species; 3) all languages are composed of phonetic syntax, arranged into a specific rule based grammar; 4) this grammar is innate and generalized enough to fit any and all possible languages; 6) syntax has meaning and context which is not limited to phonetic pronunciation (in nontonal languages); and 7) syntax and grammar are employed in such a way that they are not restricted in either space or time.
These theories also share the following biases: 1) they assume that language is unique to humans; 2) they focus upon the end result or adult linguistic abilities rather than the development and acquisition of language by children; 3) most of the studies are based on the language capacity of English speaking, middle class human subjects; and 4) research of the representational meaning of nonhuman primate behaviour is solely dependent upon the observations of reactional behaviours.
Instead of studying the origins of language based upon what we know adult humans are capable of, one could hypothesize that the precursors of linguistic ability are present in all nonhuman animal communication. Secondly, the focus should be placed upon the innate abilities of prelinguistic human children, since ultimately, from an evolutionary perspective, it is the young of a species which direct the influence of new adaptations. Finally, the focus upon grammatical rules not only clouds the issue of language origins, it is heavily biased regarding the grammatical structure of the modern English language.
All theories regarding the origins of language in modern humans share the following premises: 1) there is an innate mechanism/module/hierarchical structure in the (unique) human brain which allows for both the acquisition and processing of language; 2) the ability to physically produce vowel sounds separates modern humans from both extinct hominid species and extant nonhuman primate species; 3) all languages are composed of phonetic syntax, arranged into a specific rule based grammar; 4) this grammar is innate and generalized enough to fit any and all possible languages; 6) syntax has meaning and context which is not limited to phonetic pronunciation (in nontonal languages); and 7) syntax and grammar are employed in such a way that they are not restricted in either space or time.
These theories also share the following biases: 1) they assume that language is unique to humans; 2) they focus upon the end result or adult linguistic abilities rather than the development and acquisition of language by children; 3) most of the studies are based on the language capacity of English speaking, middle class human subjects; and 4) research of the representational meaning of nonhuman primate behaviour is solely dependent upon the observations of reactional behaviours.
Instead of studying the origins of language based upon what we know adult humans are capable of, one could hypothesize that the precursors of linguistic ability are present in all nonhuman animal communication. Secondly, the focus should be placed upon the innate abilities of prelinguistic human children, since ultimately, from an evolutionary perspective, it is the young of a species which direct the influence of new adaptations. Finally, the focus upon grammatical rules not only clouds the issue of language origins, it is heavily biased regarding the grammatical structure of the modern English language.
No comments:
Post a Comment