Origin of language: spontaneous emergence of language.
- From: markwh04@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 15 Aug 2005 13:19:54 -0700
>>From the Wikipedia
Origin of language
[Numerous other scenarios deleted]
Spontaneous emergence of grammar
"From Romulus and Remus forward, there have been a number of accounts
of wolf children or feral children raised by wild animals or out of
human contact. These accounts exist mostly in anecdote and hearsay as
well; but most of them affirm that these children never learned to
speak a language, or learned it imperfectly. There have also been
accounts of twins who spoke an unintelligible language only their
sibling understood. These cases are better documented; in the 1970s,
the Kennedy twins whose given names were "Grace" and "Virginia" called
each other Poto and Cabengo; it was determined that their idiosyncratic
speech was a deeply altered form of English, with some influence from
their grandmother's German. It appeared to be a well-formed language,
with rules governing grammar and syntax. Similarly idiosyncratic speech
patterns were reported from the twin writers June and Jennifer
Gibbons."
The same thing eventually developed between my Rott and I, with us
being as close as twin brothers. What eventually developed was a
system of communication (*two-way*) involving a combination of tonal,
gestural, body-language and phonetic elements. Due to his limitations,
the syntax never developed to any significant degree (e.g. dogs do not
have the ability to understand or use embedded clauses or subjunctive
mode); however his passive vocabulary was in the hundreds of words,
with the ability to parse words in the context of running speech. As
far as spoken language goes, his primary deficits were two-fold: (1)
his difficulty distinguishing consonants (e.g. [p], [t], [k] were
allophones to him); this led to a perception on his part of spoken
language as a kind of continuous whining sound involving transitions
between vowels with consonants doing nothing more than marking
boundaries between syllables. Consequently, when he tried to pronounce
words and phrases, this is also how it came out sounding -- like a
Wookie talking. The syllabification was clear and (in some instances)
the pronounciation came out crystal clear, but generally it came out
sounding like indistinct Wookie syllables; (2) his perception that
language solely served as an instrument for communicating distress.
Consequently, he rarely ever spoke (or, for that matter, almost never
barked, having in fact never barked once the first several years of his
life), and generally relegated it to expressing distress or urgency
(e.g. "I want that bitch!", with the "I want" part sometimes coming out
clearly). Only on rare occasions could I get him to perk up outside
these contexts, and then only with difficulty. He also had no clear
concept of the declarative sentences, but was able to recognize
imperatives (as all dogs do), but also interrogatives.
Many of the words used eventually were whittled down to much simpler
forms, to the point of being indistinct to an English-language speaker.
In some cases, lip motions with little or no vocalization sufficed.
However, with gestural and sign language, grunts, tones, this was an
entirely different matter. These were very common, particularly given
the nature of his breed, which historically was specifically raised to
communicate in this fashion. There was one noise in particular that
was interesting -- derived from the sound of one climbing up on
something with effort -- which was used to ask him to climb up on a
chair, bed or other furniture. The hand gesture for "come on" was both
in his passive *and* active vocabulary (as was the spoken phrase
itself). Another sound -- derived from the sound one makes when trying
to get an immovable object to budge, or closer to the sound one makes
when expressing perturbation at being tapped on the shoulder one too
many times -- was also both in his passive and active vocabulary. He
used it to communicate "get up and come with me!" or when he wanted
someone to get off their ass and do something. He also understood it
in this fashion.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Difference between passive and active voices
- Next by Date: Re: Invention of the Alphabet
- Previous by thread: Difference between passive and active voices
- Next by thread: Re: Order of Alphabet
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
