University of Hannover

Theories about the origin of language

by

 Thomas Schoell

Contents:

-I. Introduction 3

-II. The Continuity Theories 3

-III. The Discontinuity Theory 7

-IV. Philosophical Theories and Religious Belief 9

-V. Biological Theories 11

-VI. Common lines of arguments about the relation of brain size,
other skeletal features, intelligence and language 14

-VII. Summary and conclusion 18

-VIII. Bibliography 20

I. Introduction

The following paper introduces certain theories about the origin of the human language. These theories will reveal to which degree we can give information about the origin of language and to what extent these information are speculative or not.

The first theories deal with the straight line of evolution. According to evolution, things change in the course of time and so the first theories are concerned with the development of language. These theories try to answer the question whether the development followed a straight line or not. The subsequent theories then deal with the religious and philosophical aspects in the theories about when language started. After that, biological theories are presented, before the closing of the essay with a summary and conclusion.

II. The Continuity Theories

The first Continuity Theory is based on the conviction that there is no fundamental difference between human communication and the communication of animals. Both transmit messages to other members of their species which can be understood by the receiver of the message. The need for communication and the use of sounds, noises and signs is equally important for humans and animals. Although there is a discrepancy in the quantity of possible messages and although the sounds, noises and signs sound or look different, they are all forms of a developed language or forms of language in the constantly developing line of evolution. "Theorists of this persuasion might picture the development of communication systems as a straight road towards language." (Lenneberg, 1967 : 228)

There is a difference, however, in the form of intelligence of humans and animals. The human intelligence can be called specific as humans are able to increase the quantity of their language as well as to name abstract things, events and situations. Animals lack this sort of intelligence, so their kind of intelligence is called non-specific. Specific intelligence is a very important and fundamental essence of language.
Those who consider this Continuity Theory as correct believe that the human form of language is just a much more advanced form of animal language or communication "[...] perhaps by virtue of some kind of proliferation of elements (more memory units; or more classification devices; or more computing elements." (Lenneberg, 1967 : 228) The number of human memory units, etc. is bigger than the one of animals, so the human language is more advanced. But as animals lack the specific intelligence, they are not able to enter the first stage of language acquistion. They can merely imitate the human language sounds, such as parrots can, if they do not lack the physical properties that are necessary for language.

But the argument about the intelligence is not reasonable in the sense of zoology as intelligence is an abstract expression and cannot be measured in a mathematical sense. Measuring intelligence by testing the IQ of a test person is only applicable on humans. But even those whose IQ is low, will most of the time react on simple commands immediately.

They all have the capacity to understand the human language. Animals′ intelligence cannot be measured by the same system. And although some animals are able to react on some commands, too, we cannot draw the conclusion that they have a human kind of intelligence. We cannot compare the intelligence of different species in order to find out what the striking essences for the acquisition of the human language is. So animals that are reacting on human commands do not deliver the proof that this is a reference to human language acquisition. This philogenetic proximity does not increase the animals′ capacity for language. Language is tied to the humans′ cognitive structure. There lie the biggest differences between animal and human language.

Nevertheless, believers of this theory think that the human language must have ascended from the primitive forms of communication and language due to an increase of specific intelligence connected with a quantitive change in the human language which differentiates human from animal language.

[...]