The Origin of Language Reading Answers

The Origin of Language

The question of the origin of language is one that has been raised and discussed repeatedly at least since the eighteenth century. Before that, it was supposed that language must have been part of God’s gift to Adam. There was a tradition of linguistic inquiry that sought to discover what original tongue it was that Adam spoke, but the question of how he came to be able to speak at all was not really raised
In the eighteenth century, especially in France, the idea that human characteristics could be accounted for by nature rather than by Divine gift, was widely discussed, and such figures as Rousseau, Condillac and Maupertuis, among others, attempted to show that language could have had natural beginnings or could have been invented by natural reason. There were some who countered this – for example, the Lutheran pastor Sussmilch who, in 1756, attempted to refute the arguments of Maupertuis that language was an invention by showing that its intricate and systematic patterning could not be the product of human reason alone but must have been the creation of God.However, it was the German philosopher Herder who in 1772 won the competition set by the Berlin Academy of Sciences with an essay that refuted all arguments for a Divine origin of language. For a long time, his statement was considered to have settled the question

However, it soon became apparent that this was impossible. In reconstructing the ancestors of languages presently spoken it was realized that all you could do was to reconstruct versions of language which, though precedents for contemporary forms, were no different in principle from those that could be directly observed. It was realized that such reconstructions, whatever they might tell us about how specific languages change with time, could throw no light on the The nineteenth century saw the development of historical linguistics and, for a time, this seemed to give new life to the question of language origins. It was found that careful and systematic comparison of related languages could lead to a reconstruction of older languages of which they were descendants. In particular, much effort was expended in the reconstruction of Indo-European, the language proposed as ancestral to many languages of Europe and some of India. For a time it was thought that such historical work could lead to an understanding of the nature of earlier forms of language and perhaps, eventually, to an insight into its earliest form.

However, it soon became apparent that this was impossible. In reconstructing the ancestors of languages presently spoken it was realized that all you could do was to reconstruct versions of language which, though precedents for contemporary forms, were no different in principle from those that could be directly observed. It was realized that such reconstructions, whatever they might tell us about how specific languages change with time, could throw no light on the issue of how language came about in the first place.
Furthermore, as historical work proceeded and more and more languages were carefully examined, it appeared that the changes languages undergo with time, though to some degree lawful, were neither consistent nor progressive. It was not found, for instance, that older languages were simpler than contemporary languages, nor was it found possible to show that any of the various types of language proposed — such as ‘isolating’, ‘agglutinating’ or ‘inflecting’ — represented earlier or later stages in language development. In other words, the changes that languages were found to undergo with time were manifestly not to be accounted for by any clear process of evolution. The practitioners of historical linguistics, accordingly, abandoned any quest for a general theory of language development, and they gave up the idea that their work could throw light on language origins.
By the end of the first decade of the twentieth century, the emphasis in linguistics had shifted from historical analysis to the analysis of the synchronic structure of languages. De Saussure’s argument that historical (diachronic) analysis was not relevant for understanding the organisation of a given linguistic system when considered in its use by a community of speakers had an important influence. In addition, Franz Boas and his pupil Edward Sapir, working in North America, showed that the languages of the Native Americans had to be understood in their own terms since they had grammars and sound systems that could not be comprehended in terms of systems derived from European languages.

This work helped to show that the languages of so-called ‘primitive’ peoples were just as complicated as the most sophisticated and modern of European languages and that there was no evidence for the preservation of earlier forms of language. The development of methods for describing the diversity of human languages became a major preoccupation for linguistics, and questions about the origin of the human capacity for language, or of how languages had evolved from earlier forms to those of the present, seemed less and less relevant. Speculation about language origins thus appeared worthless, for there was no evidence on which it could be based. Anyone’s guess was as good as another’s. The wastepaper baskets of London were perhaps, after all, the best destination for such imaginings.

Questions 1 – 3

Look at the following statements and the list of people below.

Match each statement with the correct person. 

1      Felt that historical analysis was irrelevant.
2      Believed that it was impossible for all languages to be explained with one system.
3      Felt that human language was Divine.

List of People 

A Condillac
B Boas
C Herder
D Sussmilch
E De Saussure

1.E

Explanation:Paragraph 7 – De Saussure’s argument that historical (diachronic) analysis was not relevant for understanding the organisation of a given linguistic system when considered in its use by a community of speakers, had an important influence.

2.B

Explanation: Paragraph 7 – In addition, Franz Boas and his pupil Edward Sapir, working in North America, showed that the languages of the Native Americans had to be understood in their own terms since they had grammars and sound systems that could not be comprehended in terms of systems derived from European languages.

3.D

Explanation: Paragraph 2 – There were some who countered this – for example, the Lutheran pastor Sussmilch who, in 1756, attempted to refute the arguments of Maupertuis that language was an invention by showing that its intricate and systematic patterning could not be the product of human reason alone but must have been the creation of God.