The authors
wrote that a key element of determining the origin of language is whether the
skills required came from one source at one time, or from multiple, separate
sources at different times. ‘Monogenesis’ is the term for the former, and ‘polygenesis’
is the term for the latter. The authors agreed that a polygenesis origin is
questionable, even improbable, as it requires many parallel developments of a
long, complex process to occur independently. They noted that, since everyone,
regardless of ethnicity, can learn any language they attempt, there must be
some innate quality to language that suggests it originated from one area. This
monogenesis comes in two forms, a ‘radical’ and a ‘fuzzy’. ‘Radical’
monogenesis is where all the traits originated in one spot at one time, as did the
subsequent language, which later diverged into multiple forms. They believed that
the most probable origin is this “fuzzy” monogenesis, where there is a single
origin of the traits for language, but different groups were free to develop
their language at different paces. The authors noted that there can never be a
definitive answer.
The earliest
languages discovered so far, ‘protolanguages’, are still much younger than the definitive
first language. The most reconstructed is Proto-Indo-European, which existed
about six thousand years ago near the steppes of Russia. It is the ‘father’ of
most South Asian and European languages today.
The authors made
a final note that one of the most important things to remember in all of this
is that there were probably more languages existing in the past than there are
currently, making the origin of language even more muddled.
*Adachi, N., Salzmann, Z., &
Stanlaw, J. (2015). Language, Culture, and Society: An Introduction to Linguistic Anthropology (6th ed.). Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
This is a really interesting topic. Do you know how much of the Proto-Indo-European has been reconstructed? have the discovered any evidence of a earlier language before the PIE? If so were and are their any similarities between the two to called it a transition or a shift from the older languages to the PIE?
ReplyDeleteI do not know the exact percentage, and the researchers probably do not either, but from what I understand a lot of Proto-Indo-European has been reconstructed. Although it has been through its current language descendants, there is enough data that they have discovered the phonology, morphology, numerals, and even religion and culture of the proto-Indo-Europeans. There are some theories that link Proto-Indo-European with other proto-languages, but there is not enough evidence to be definitive. Some of these theories link P-I-E to Uralic, Altaic, and Northwest Caucasian languages (between the Black and Caspian Seas). There is even a theory that links all the languages together, called Proto-Human. There probably was an earlier language than P-I-E, but as there is such little evidence for proto-languages already it is doubtful anything older is discovered.
DeleteThis was the topic I found most interesting as well. I read almost all the anthropological articles from IFL Science, which doesn't sound like the most reliable source but they do a good job of citing sources and accurately summarizing material in layman's terms. I went back to their site because I remember reading something on this exact subject. Turns out, the other contender for the location of proto-indo-european's origins was modern day Turkey, but researchers have since concluded that Russia is the more likely of the two, as you said. They've come to this conclusion via linguistic and genetic analysis, which I find really interesting. Here's the link if you'd like to check it out, they link to the originally published research: http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/indo-european-languages-may-have-originated-6000-years-ago-russian-grasslands/
ReplyDeleteThank you for the recommendation; I will look into it.
Delete