Lang-u-widge

Where does language come from?

Yes, it is a rhetorical question; but that’s only because I’ve asked it many times before, and have always been given similar answers that address languages coming from different cultures and whatnot, but not its core origin.

So, what did I do? I went on a search for myself, and found this, by Dr. C. George Boeree:

“There are many theories about the origins of language. Many of these have traditional amusing names (invented by Max Müller and George Romanes a century ago), and I will create a couple more where needed.

1. The mama theory. Language began with the easiest syllables attached to the most significant objects.

2. The ta-ta theory. Sir Richard Paget, influenced by Darwin, believed that body movement preceded language. Language began as an unconscious vocal imitation of these movements -- like the way a child’s mouth will move when they use scissors, or my tongue sticks out when I try to play the guitar. This evolved into the popular idea that language may have derived from gestures.

3. The bow-wow theory. Language began as imitations of natural sounds -- moo, choo-choo, crash, clang, buzz, bang, meow... This is more technically refered to as onomatopoeia or echoism.

4. The pooh-pooh theory. Language began with interjections, instinctive emotive cries such as oh! for surprise and ouch! for pain.

5. The ding-dong theory. Some people, including the famous linguist Max Muller, have pointed out that there is a rather mysterious correspondence between sounds and meanings. Small, sharp, high things tend to have words with high front vowels in many languages, while big, round, low things tend to have round back vowels! Compare itsy bitsy teeny weeny with moon, for example. This is often referred to as sound symbolism.

6. The yo-he-ho theory. Language began as rhythmic chants, perhaps ultimately from the grunts of heavy work (heave-ho!). The linguist A. S. Diamond suggests that these were perhaps calls for assistance or cooperation accompanied by appropriate gestures. This may relate yo-he-ho to the ding-dong theory, as in such words as cut, break, crush, strike...

7. The sing-song theory. Danish linguist Jesperson suggested that language comes out of play, laughter, cooing, courtship, emotional mutterings and the like. He even suggests that, contrary to other theories, perhaps some of our first words were actually long and musical, rather than the short grunts many assume we started with.

8. The hey you! theory. A linguist by the name of Revesz suggested that we have always needed interpersonal contact, and that language began as sounds to signal both identity (here I am!) and belonging (I’m with you!). We may also cry out in fear, anger, or hurt (help me!). This is more commonly called the contact theory.

9. The hocus pocus theory. My own contribution to these is the idea that language may have had some roots in a sort of magical or religious aspect of our ancestors' lives. Perhaps we began by calling out to game animals with magical sounds, which became their names.

10. The eureka! theory. And finally, perhaps language was consciously invented. Perhaps some ancestor had the idea of assigning arbitrary sounds to mean certain things. Clearly, once the idea was had, it would catch on like wild-fire!” (C. George Boeree, 2003)

However, even this new insight into language invention, I still wonder, and find it fascinating, how people originally connected some words with their objects, and even more so, how words were prescribed a meaning, or vice-versa; how terms were appointed to various descriptions.

Did someone one day pick up a carrot and decide it should be called a carrot? What does ‘carrot’ even mean? The miraculous thing that comes out of this ‘naming’ is that now, whenever anyone mentions a ‘carrot’ for whatever reason, most people will know what they’re talking about. But, how, in any other way, does the word ‘carrot’ seem related to the long, pointy, orange vegetable?

To philosophers and to people in general, it is generally accepted knowledge, ironically, that ‘fact’ doesn’t exist. Nothing is certain; humans simply observe, analyse and label things to attempt to understand them. The names and descriptions we prescribe to these things is simply our method of understanding them.

So, in saying that language is a product of how we perceive and understand the world around us, and given that different cultures have different words for the same name (which, again, could be considered an entirely different word?? It’s just another way of identifying the same object in a more relevant way for a different society), doesn’t this mean that, as words and definitions are only a product of human ‘labeling’, and therefore changeable, other human-created ideas and concepts are just as changeable? Perhaps, due to the limits of our understanding, beyond this things are even more vulnerable to change or destruction.

Then again, if what I suggest has any truth, and language bares little truth bar what we make of it, perhaps this is fake! ... Fortunately, it seems that what we make of things is the most important thing.