Sounds from the Garden of Eden


This blog will bring a new way of thinking of and theorizing the subject of the origin and evolution of language. The blog is based on the content of the new book shown above.
  When I started thinking about language evolution, I asked myself what could be said for granted about the subject. And three things came up: the first were the languages spoken today, which are quite well known and described. 
The second was the first evidence of written languages of 5 thousands year ago, ancient Egyptian and Sumerian, of which what is most important for us is the fact that they were in many aspects very much similar to modern languages.
The third sure fact that I could point out were...the voices of monkeys and apes. 
As those troubling themselves with our subject know, the very famous Noam Chomsky has been desperated in advance of any hope of finding evidence for the evolution of language, and he dedicated much of his late writing to convince us there is no chance to find any evidence, and it all started by an accidental mutation in one person that made him so smart  that enabled him and his many off springs to develop language out of their brilliant minds. Surely this is an absolute non understanding of biology and evolution whatsoever, and we can summerize that Chomsky is not relevant for our subject.
The factual evidence supporting the theorizing of the evolution of language is abundant. much more abundant than the evidence supporting the big bang theory. What needed is to collect the relevant data. 
For example, what could have been the first sounds of the descends of chimpanzee like ape out of which hominins evolved? 
When I faced my first factual result, I realized  that the mission I was taking on was to bridge the gap between the guttural sounds of apes and the modern speech which consists mainly on articulating sounds using the tongue, a practice which is practically absolutly absent in apes as well as in all animals. 
The theory developed in the title book, and in part in this blog, is new and unprecedented in many aspects, of which one very important is the developing of a phonetic theory that outlines the principle events that took place during the evolution of human beeings and language.  

 The rest of this post is a paragraph from chapter 2, page 111. It prefaces the discussion about guttural sounds:

  4: The Beginning: Guttural Sounds.
The first chapter dealt with the timeframe within which the origin
of Language must be sought, concluding that the evolution
of language has no initial starting point in time. Neither the
emergence of written language, early painting, earliest stone
tools, nor the earliest fossilized hominid skeletons are hard
evidence of the emergence of speech. Therefore, we must begin
our story with the earliest stage of human evolution, namely the
beginning of bipedalism, which turned the primordial ape into
a hominid, or better still, an Australopithecus. In other words,
we must rely on hard, concrete facts, avoiding unsupportable
speculations, when we come to draw the outlines of our theory.
In this section, we shall provide evidence to show that the
earliest human expressive sounds were guttural. We use the
following assumptions:
• Early australopithecines could generate no other sounds.
• These are the sounds produced by a baby during its first
months of life.
• An adult in distress, losing the ability to utter words, resorts to
guttural sounds.
• The history of many languages reveals transformations from
guttural sounds to front-mouth sounds.
The phonetic evolution hypothesis, which is the core of the
present work, is that speech evolved from guttural to tongue
sounds. We must refer to it as a hypothesis, since it deals with
the distant past, yet, as opposed to the claims that followed the
publication of my previous book, this is no mere speculation,
but the inevitable course of the evolution of speech. The
earliest sounds available to earliest speakers were undoubtedly
guttural. .

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

ON THE HISTORY OF A LANGUAGE AND LANGUAGE FAMILIES

Image
THE FAMILY TREE OF LANGUAGES IS WRONG - IT HAS NEVER SPROUTED The third chapter of my book "Sounds from the Garden of Eden" discusses the theme of language relations. The common, widely accepted theory tells us that almost every language is a part of a family of languages. Like, for instance, English belongs to the Germanic family, which by itself is a part of the Indo-European family. Every student of linguistics or anything that has to do with languages studies this theory as if it were an absolute truth. The theory of language family was invented two hundred years ago to be applied to the language families then known, the Indo European and Semitic. later all languages of the world were assembled in families, and also in macro families, like the Afro Asiatic which connects 6 different families of languages, 5 from Africa, and the Semitic. The theory principle is very simple. In the deep far past there was a language spoken by a quite small group of people. This langua...
Read more

What is so mysteriously indecipherable about language evolution

Image
IS IT ONLY LANGUAGE EVOLUTION THAT HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED?  Reading the abundant literature treating the evolution of language with a preliminary consent of failure to build up a theory that would come close to the stream of real events that made language live, is frustrating. Yet, is this frustration justified? Do we already have a well developed theories of other abilities of human beings? Of walking, for instance? of the many ways of using our hands? of sexual courting? Can anyone answer the question of the evolution of walking? be sure, it takes much much more than telling us that in some ancient time some animal developed legs in order to be able to walk. Such answers, surely much richer in details, usually describing the structures of legs and pelvics (see for example this paper evolution of human walking ). What we get in such descriptions equals, when talking of speech, to description of the changes of the organs of the vocal tract, What we actually look for is the de...
Read more

Has Chomsky advanced linguistics?

Image
Surely the headline question has many aspects, and a short post can't take the mission of answering it correctly. Yet I am going to look into one quite recent paper published by Chomsky and three of his followers, to find out that the Chomskyan school is wrong in the most basics of language. The paper is titled  "How could language have evolved?"  It seems to propose some of the important failures of the Chomskyan theory. Take the use they do with "faculty of language". Is there a department - which is the meaning of "faculty" - of language in the human body, brain, or elsewhere? why no one other than the Chomskyans speaks of any "faculty" in the human sciences? The answer is quite simple. No one other than Chomsky regards language as a department. Rather it is regarded as a collective name of  fitness and capability of producing meaningful patterns by voice, writing or signing. The common perception of language shared by most people and ...
Read more