Russian archaeologist, Ph.D. PhD, Leading Researcher, Department of Paleolithic Archeology, Institute of History material culture RAS (IIMK RAS, St. Petersburg).

“From the heat, the bamboo cracked and splinters
broke up in different sides. So the first
people appeared hands and feet, and on the head
- eyes, ears and nostrils. But here it resounded especially
loud crack: "Waaah!". It's in the first people
their mouths opened and they were speechless.”

"Myths and Traditions of the Papuans Marind-Anim".

In almost any large work on the origin of language, one can find a mention of the fact that there were times in the history of science when this topic enjoyed a very bad reputation among scientists, and prohibitions were even imposed on its consideration. So, in particular, the Parisian Linguistic Society acted in 1866, introducing an appropriate clause into its charter, which then existed in it for decades. In general, it is not difficult to understand the reason for such discrimination: too many, based on nothing but imagination, not based, purely speculative, and even semi-fantastic theories, once gave rise to a discussion of the problem that interests us. As noted by O.A. Donskikh, in fact, the word "theory" in many such cases consecrated some elementary consideration, which then, thanks to an unrestrained flight of fancy, grew in different authors in pictures of the origin of speech. one

Now there are no formal prohibitions on discussing anything, but the topic of the origin of the language does not cease to be less slippery for this. If, thanks to archeology, there is information about the early stages of the evolution of material culture, although far from exhaustive, but still sufficient for some general reconstructions, then the early stages of the evolution of linguistic behavior have to be judged mainly by indirect data. Therefore, today, as in the 19th century, the topic of this section continues to give rise to many speculative assumptions and hypotheses based not so much on facts as on their absence. In such a situation, it is especially important to clearly distinguish between what we really know and what we can only assume with a greater or lesser degree of probability. Alas, we must immediately admit that the overall balance here is far from being in favor of the reliably known.

First of all, let's try to formulate the problem as clearly as possible. What, in fact, do we seek to learn and understand by exploring the origin of the language? To begin with, let us recall that we have agreed to call language any system of differentiated signs corresponding to differentiated concepts. This definition, as well as the definition of what a sign is, was already discussed in Chapter 4. Although language is often identified with speech, in principle any of the five senses can serve to transmit and perceive signs. The deaf-mute communicate by sight, the blind read and write by touch, and it is quite easy to imagine the language of smells or taste sensations. Thus, despite the fact that for the vast majority of people, language is, first of all, sound, the problem of the origin of language is much broader than the problem of the origin of speech. The ability to use language can be exercised in many ways, not necessarily in sound form. Our speech is only one of the possible forms of sign communication, and the verbal-sound language underlying it is only one of possible types languages.

The problem of the origin of the language can be represented as a series of separate, albeit closely interrelated issues. Firstly, I would like to understand why the language was needed at all. Secondly, it is necessary to understand how its biological foundation was formed, i.e. organs serving for education, transmission and perception linguistic signs. Thirdly, it would be interesting to try to imagine how these signs themselves were formed, and what they originally represented. Finally, the questions of when, in what epoch and at what stage of human evolution the language ability was formed and when it was realized stand apart. Let us consider all the selected aspects of the problem of the origin of language in the order in which we have listed them here.

So why does language appear at all? Does it arise in connection with the need to improve the ways of exchanging information, or only as a means of thinking? Which of these two functions was the original, main, and which was the secondary, derivative? What came first - language or thought? Is thought possible without language?

Some scientists are firmly convinced that the mind, thinking, is a product of language, and not vice versa. Even T. Hobbes believed that initially language did not serve communication, but only thinking, and some people think the same way. contemporary authors. 2 Others, on the contrary, are convinced that language is a means of communicating thoughts, and not of producing them, and, therefore, thinking is independent of language and has its own genetic roots and compositional structure. “For me, there is no doubt that our thinking proceeds mainly bypassing symbols (words) and, moreover, unconsciously,” wrote, for example, A. Einstein, and zoopsychologists have long been talking about “preverbal concepts” that higher animals have. In light of what we now know about the great apes, the second view seems more plausible. Their example shows that thinking, if we mean the formation of concepts and operating with them, clearly arises before the ability to communicate these concepts, i.e. before language. Of course, having arisen, the language began to serve as an instrument of thinking, but this role was still, most likely, secondary, derived from the main one, which was the communicative function.

According to a very popular and quite plausible hypothesis, initially the need for the formation of a language was associated, first of all, with the complication social life in hominid associations. It was already mentioned in the first chapter that in primates there is a fairly stable direct relationship between the size of the cerebral cortex and the number of communities characteristic of a given species. The English primatologist R. Dunbar, starting from the fact of such a correlation, proposed an original hypothesis of the origin of the language. He noticed that there is a direct relationship not only between the relative size of the cerebral cortex and the size of the groups, but also between their size and the amount of time that members of each group spend on grooming. 3 Grooming, in addition to the fact that it performs purely hygienic functions, also plays an important socio-psychological role. It helps to relieve tension in relationships between individuals, establish friendly relations between them, maintain cohesion within groups and preserve their integrity. However, the amount of time spent on grooming cannot grow indefinitely without harming other vitals. important species activities (search for food, sleep, etc.). Therefore, it is logical to assume that when hominin communities reached a certain threshold value of abundance, it should become necessary to replace or, in any case, supplement grooming with some other means of ensuring social stability less time-consuming, but no less effective. According to Dunbar, language became such a means. It remains, however, unclear what could have caused the constant increase in the size of groups, but it is possible that, speaking of hominids, the leading role should not be assigned to quantitative change communities (as Dunbar believes), but their qualitative complication, due to the emergence of new areas of social life, new aspects of relationships, and also requiring an increase in time spent on grooming.

We will return to Dunbar's conjecture when we will talk about the time of the origin of the language, and now let's turn to the question of what anatomical organs our ancestors should have needed when they finally came to the conclusion that they had something to say to each other, and how these organs were formed. Of course, our cognitive capabilities in this area are severely limited due to the specifics of fossil material - everything has to be judged only by bones, and, as a rule, anthropologists have much fewer of them than we would like - but still something interesting you can find out.

The development of the brain has been and is being studied most intensively. The main material for such studies is the so-called endocrine reflux, i.e. dummies of the brain cavity (Fig. 7.1). They make it possible to get an idea not only about the volume of the brain of fossil forms, but also about some important features of its structure, which are reflected in the relief. inner surface cranium. So. It has been observed for some time that the endocranial tides of late Australopithecus, and Australopithecus africanus in particular, show bulges in some of the areas where humans are thought to have major speech centers. Three such centers are usually distinguished, but one of them, located on the medial surface of the frontal lobe of the brain, does not leave an imprint on the bones of the skull, and therefore it is impossible to judge the degree of its development and its very existence in fossil hominids. The other two leave such prints. These are Broca's field (stress on the last syllable), associated with the lateral surface of the left frontal lobe, and Wernicke's field, also located on the lateral surface of the left hemisphere at the border of the parietal and temporal regions (Fig. 7.2). On the endocranial tides of Australopithecus africanus, the presence of Broca's field is noted, and in one case, Wernicke's field was also presumably identified. The first members of the genus Homo both of these structures are already quite distinct.

If understanding the evolution of the brain is important for assessing the capacity for language behavior in general, then studying the structure of the respiratory and vocal organs of fossil hominids sheds light on the development of the speech ability necessary for our verbal-sound language. 4 One area of ​​this kind of research, called paleolaryngology, aims to reconstruct the upper airways of our ancestors. Reconstructions are possible due to the fact that the anatomy of the base of the skull (basicranium) to some extent reflects some features of the soft tissues of the upper respiratory tract. In particular, there is a relationship between the degree of curvature of the base of the skull and the position of the larynx in the throat: with a slightly curved base, the larynx is located high, and with a strongly curved base, it is much lower. The last feature, i.e. low location of the larynx, characteristic only for people. True, in children under two years old, the larynx is located as high as in animals (which, by the way, gives them and animals the opportunity to eat and breathe almost simultaneously), and only in the third year of life does it begin to descend (which allows for better and more varied articulation of sounds, but poses a risk of choking).

In order to reconstruct changes in the position of the larynx during human evolution, basicraniums of fossil hominids have been studied. Australopithecus has been found to be much closer in this respect to the great apes than to modern humans. Consequently, their vocal repertoire was most likely very limited. Changes in the modern direction began at the stage of Homo erectus: analysis of the skull of KNM-ER 3733, about 1.5 million years old, revealed a rudimentary bending of the basicranium. On the skulls of early paleoanthropes, about half a million years old, a complete bend is already fixed, close to what is characteristic of modern people. The situation with Neanderthals is somewhat more complicated, but, most likely, their larynx was located low enough so that they could pronounce all the sounds necessary for articulate speech. We will return to this topic again in the next chapter.

Another organ associated with speech activity is the diaphragm, which provides the precise control of breathing necessary for rapid, articulate speech. In modern people, one of the consequences of this function of the diaphragm is an increase in the number of bodies nerve cells in the spinal cord of the thoracic vertebrae, resulting in an enlargement of the thoracic spinal canal compared to other primates. It is possible that such an expansion already occurred among the archanthropes, as evidenced by some finds from the eastern shore of Lake Turkana. True, there are materials that contradict this conclusion. In particular, judging by the thoracic vertebrae of the skeleton from Nariokotome in East Africa(age about 1.6 million years), its owner in the respect we are interested in was closer to monkeys than to modern people. On the contrary, Neanderthals practically do not differ from us in terms of the trait under consideration.

Of great importance for the development of the speech abilities of fossil hominids, of course, were changes in the size and structure of the jaws and oral cavity, organs that are most directly involved in the articulation of sounds. The bulky, heavy jaws of most early hominins, such as Australopithecus massive (it was named massive because of the large size of the jaws and teeth), could be a serious obstacle to fluent speech, even if the brain and respiratory organs were they were no different from ours. However, soon after the appearance of the genus Homo this issue has been largely resolved. In any case, judging by the structure of the bones of the oral part of the skull, belonging to members of the Homo erectus species, they could make all the movements of the tongue necessary in order to successfully articulate vowels and consonants.

For many authors who touch upon the problem of the origin of language in one way or another, the question of natural sources and stages of the genesis of linguistic signs. How did they arise? In what form: verbal, gestural, or otherwise? What were the sources of their formation, how was a certain meaning attached to them? Often these questions simply obscure the whole problem. Meanwhile, they are, in general, secondary. They would be of paramount importance only if we returned to the concept of the intellectual gulf separating man and animals. Then the problem that interests us would be a match for the problem, say, of the origin of the living from the non-living. In fact, however, as I tried to show in one of the previous chapters, the formation of signs human language- it is rather the development of an already existing quality, rather than the emergence of an absolutely new quality. Denying the abyss thus significantly lowers the rank of the question. It is in many ways akin to, for example, the question of whether our ancestors made their first tools from stone, bone, or wood, and perhaps even less hope to get a convincing answer to it someday. Both, of course, are extremely curious, awaken the imagination, give scope for many hypotheses, but at the same time, they are very reminiscent of such a fragment of a crossword puzzle with which no other line intersects and the solution of which, therefore, although interesting in itself , does little to solve the crossword puzzle as a whole.

There are two main points of view regarding the origin of linguistic signs. One is that they originally had a verbal-sound character and grew out of various kinds of natural vocalizations characteristic of our distant ancestors, while the other suggests that the sound language was preceded by sign language, which could have been formed on the basis of facial expressions and various movements that are so widely represented. in the communication repertoire of many monkeys. Within each of these two directions, speech and gesture, many competing hypotheses coexist. They consider as source material for the genesis of linguistic signs different types natural sounds and movements and the details of the reconstructed processes are drawn differently. Over the years of disputes between supporters of opposing hypotheses, many interesting, witty, or simply funny ideas have been expressed by them. Some of them are able to strike the most sophisticated imagination. So, in one of the classic works of the speech direction, the authors, giving free rein to their imagination and wanting to emphasize the irreducibility of the problem of the origin of language to the question of the evolution of the vocal organs, point to the theoretical possibility that, in a slightly different scenario of anatomical realities, speech, in principle, could be carried non-verbally. - sound, and sphincter-sound character. 5 It remains only to thank nature for not taking advantage of this opportunity.

One of the most famous and realistic scenarios of how the natural (innate) communication system of early hominids could turn into an artificial verbal-sound language was proposed by the American linguist C. Hockett. Special attention he paid attention to the topic of transformation of genetically fixed vocalizations of animals into words, an explanation of how and why individual sounds (phonemes) formed into certain semantic combinations (morphemes) and how a certain meaning was assigned to the latter. Hockett noticed that the communication system of our distant ancestors, being closed, i.e. consisting of a limited number of signals attached to an equally limited number of phenomena, inevitably had to undergo a radical transformation if it became necessary to designate an increasing number of objects. The first step in such a transformation, leading to the transformation of a closed system into an open one, could, in his opinion, be an increase in the phonetic diversity of vocalizations. However, this path is naturally limited and, moreover, fraught with an increase in the number of errors both in the production of sounds, and especially in their perception, since the differences between individual sounds, as their number increased, had to become more and more subtle and difficult to perceive. Consequently, while maintaining the tendency to increase the number of objects, phenomena and relationships that required designation, a more effective way to increase the information capacity of the communication system became necessary. A natural solution to the problem was to give meaning not to individual, even complex sounds, but to their easily distinguishable and numerically unlimited combinations. Thus, according to Hockett, sounds became phonological components, and pre-language became language.

However, one cannot discount the hypothesis according to which language was originally sign language. Monkeys are known to communicate through multiple sensory channels, but vocalizations often do not serve to convey specific information, but only to draw attention to gestural or other signals. In this regard, it is sometimes argued that a blind animal in the primate community would be much more impaired in terms of communication than the deaf. The hypothesis of the existence of a subsonic stage in the development of language can also be supported by the fact that the artificial signs used by chimpanzees (both in nature and under experimental conditions) are gestural, while sound signals, apparently, are innate. Figurativeness, or, as it is sometimes said, iconicity, inherent in visual signs to a much greater extent than in sound ones, is another property that could provide the historical priority of gestural communication. It is much easier to create a recognizable image of an object or action with hand movements than with movements of the lips and tongue.

The fact that speech was preceded by sign language, the development of which then led to the emergence of the language of exclamations, was written by Condillac. E. Taylor, LG Morgan, A. Wallace, W. Wundt and some other classics of anthropology, biology and philosophy also adhered to similar views. N. Ya. Marr wrote about "kinetic speech" that preceded sound speech. As for the present, now the number of adherents of the idea of ​​the initial gestural stage in the history of language almost exceeds the number of those who believe that the language was originally sound. Various scenarios for the emergence and evolution of sign language to a sound language or in parallel with it have been proposed by a number of linguists, primatologists, and anthropologists. They have to solve, in general, the same essentially the same problems that the "speech people" struggle with, and besides, they also have to explain how and why sign language eventually turned into sound. “If spoken language was preceded by sign language, then the problem of glottogenesis is the problem of the emergence of sign language. But it, in turn, remains the problem of the origin of language. In the same way as in the case of sounds, it is necessary to indicate the sources of the development of gestures, explain the reason that gestures have received a certain meaning, and describe the syntax of the sign language. If this is done, then the problem of the emergence of a spoken language becomes the problem of the displacement of gestures by the sounds accompanying them. 6

In principle, by the way, it cannot be ruled out that the formation of the language was originally polycentric in nature, i.e. occurred independently in several geographically isolated hominin populations. In this case, the process could proceed in very different forms, but there is no way to reconstruct them, or even simply assess the degree of plausibility of such a hypothesis.

One of the main, or perhaps the most main feature of our language, clearly distinguishing it from the communication systems of monkeys and other animals, is the presence of syntax. Some researchers, who attach particular importance to this feature, believe that it is precisely and only with the advent of syntax that one can speak of language in the proper sense of the word, and archaic non-syntactic forms of sign communication, assumed for early hominids, are better called proto-language. There is a point of view that the lack of syntax limited not only the effectiveness of the language as a means of communication, but also had an extremely negative effect on thinking, making it impossible, or, in any case, making it very difficult to build complex logical chains of the type: “event x happened because an event happened y; x always happens when it happens y; if it doesn't happen x, then it will not happen and y" etc. True, the speech last case we are already talking about rather complex syntactic relations and constructions, while their simplest forms (like those sometimes used by chimpanzees trained in visual signs) are also allowed for the proto-language.

There are a number of hypotheses regarding the origin of syntax. Some authors believe that this event was like an explosion, i.e. happened quickly and abruptly, due to some kind of macromutation that caused a corresponding reorganization of the brain. Many adherents of this point of view believe that people have some kind of innate apparatus for acquiring a language, which not only provides the opportunity for learning, but also directly affects the nature of our speech, organizing it in accordance with a genetically determined system of rules. This learning-independent system of rules was considered by the American linguist N. Chomsky, the founder of the approach under consideration, as a kind of “universal grammar” common to our entire biological species, rooted in the neural structure of the brain (“language organ”) and providing speed and ease of learning the language and using it.

Supporters alternative point view consider the origin of syntax the result of a gradual evolutionary process. In their opinion, Chomsky's theory requires a sudden qualitative change in the linguistic abilities of primates, which can only be explained either by divine intervention or by several simultaneous and coordinated mutations, which is extremely unlikely and is not consistent with the fact of the long evolution of the brain and vocal organs. There is a mathematical model that proves the inevitability of syntaxing a language, provided that the number of signs used by its native speakers exceeds a certain threshold level.

Having presented in general terms how things stood with the formation of the biological foundation of the language, and what could be the ways of the genesis of linguistic signs, we now turn to the question of the chronology of these processes. Although neither speech nor sign language, if it preceded it, are archaeologically elusive due to their immaterial nature, and it is very little to establish the exact time of their appearance, and even more so to date the main stages of the evolution of hope, approximate chronological estimates based on various kinds of indirect data are still quite possible. Most of these assessments are based on the analysis of anthropological materials, but information gleaned from primatology, comparative anatomy, archeology, and some other sciences may also be useful.

The fact of a noticeable increase in the brain already in a skilled person is usually interpreted as an indicator of the increased intellectual, including the linguistic potential of these hominids. The presence in them of formations similar to our fields of Broca and Wernicke also serves as an argument in favor of the existence of the rudiments of speech already at this early stage of evolution. Moreover, some researchers even admit that already some later Australopithecus could have had rudimentary speech abilities. However, it is worth remembering here that, firstly, as the example of great apes shows, having abilities does not mean using them, and secondly, the functions of both named fields, especially on early stages their evolution is not exactly clear yet. It is possible that their formation was not directly related to the formation of sign behavior, and thus their presence cannot serve as "iron" proof of the existence of a language.

It is more difficult to question the evolutionary meaning of some transformations of the vocal organs. The fact is that the low position of the larynx, which, as it is believed, provides the possibility of articulate speech, also has negative side Man, unlike other animals, can choke. It is unlikely that the risk associated with this kind of anatomical changes was their only result and was not compensated from the very beginning by another, useful function (or functions). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that those hominids, in which the larynx was already located quite low, not only had the possibility of articulate speech, but also used it. If this assumption is correct, then at least the early paleoanthropes, who appeared about half a million years ago, should be considered speaking creatures, while not denying the language abilities and their predecessors, referred to as Homo erectus.

Interesting possibilities for determining the time of the emergence of a language are opened by R. Dunbar's hypothesis already mentioned above. It is based, as we remember, on the fact that there is a direct relationship between the relative size of the cerebral cortex and the size of primate communities, on the one hand, and between the size of communities and the time that their members spend on grooming, on the other. Dunbar used the first of these regularities to calculate the approximate size of early hominin groups. The size of their cerebral cortex was estimated by him on the basis of data on endocranial reflux. However unreliable and controversial such calculations may seem, one cannot help but notice that the "natural" size of the community, derived by Dunbar for Homo sapiens(148 people), finds confirmation in ethnographic data on primitive and traditional societies. It corresponds to just that threshold value, up to which the relations of kinship, property and mutual assistance are quite sufficient to regulate relations between people. If this limit is exceeded, then the nature of the organization of society begins to become more complicated, it is split into subgroups, and special governing bodies and authorities appear.

Having calculated the "natural" size of communities for different species of hominids, Dunbar used the second pattern he identified to calculate how much of their time members of each species would have to spend on grooming. After that, it remains only to establish at what stage of our evolutionary history this number reached that threshold value at which it should have become necessary to replace or, in any case, supplement grooming with some other less time-consuming means of ensuring social stability. Since primates can spend up to 20% of their daily time on grooming without prejudice to other activities, 7 the critical point presumably corresponds to such a number at which these costs would increase to 25-30% (in modern humans, with a natural community size of 148 members, they reach 40%). Such a point, as calculations show, was probably already reached 250 thousand years ago, or even twice as long, which means that at least early paleoanthropes, if not archanthropes (homo erectus), must already have had speech. It is easy to see that the dating of the origin of language, obtained by Dunbar in such an original way, is fully consistent with the conclusions drawn from the study of the evolution of the larynx and oral cavity.

Archaeologists, based on their materials, are also trying to judge the chronology of the formation of the language. Although in order to make even very complex stone tools, or to depict animal figures in charcoal and ocher, in principle, it is not at all necessary to be able to talk, there are still such activities that are impossible or at least very difficult to carry out without at least some then communication and preliminary discussion. Having fixed the reflection of such actions in the archaeological material, it is possible, therefore, with a high degree of probability to assume the presence of a language in the corresponding period.

It is sometimes argued that one of these activities was collective hunting, which required a pre-agreed plan and coordination of actions. There is undoubtedly a rational grain in this idea, but it is not so easy to use it in practice. Chimpanzees, for example, quite often hunt in large groups, which increases the chances of success, but each monkey acts at its own discretion. In hominids, for a long time, everything could have happened in a similar way, and it is not yet possible to determine exactly when the hunt turned from a group into a truly collective one, organized in accordance with a certain plan.

Another possible archaeological indicator of the appearance of more or less developed ways sign communication is the use by people of "imported" raw materials in the manufacture of stone tools. Indeed, in order to obtain flint or, say, obsidian from deposits located tens or hundreds of kilometers from the site, one must first somehow learn about their existence and the road to them, or else establish an exchange with those groups on whose land these deposits are located. Both would be difficult to do without language.

An even more reliable sign of the use of their linguistic abilities by our ancestors may, apparently, be the fact of navigation. In fact, a long journey by sea is impossible without extensive special training, including the construction swimming facilities, the creation of reserves of provisions and water, etc., and all this requires the coordinated actions of many people and preliminary discussion. Therefore, the settlement of remote islands, where it was impossible to reach except by sea, can be considered as indirect evidence of the existence of a language in the corresponding period. Knowing, for example, that people appeared in Australia about 50 thousand years ago, we can conclude that at that time they were already quite capable of explaining themselves to each other. It is possible, however, that in fact the era of the great geographical discoveries and distant sea ​​voyages began much earlier, and that on some islands, separated from the mainland by hundreds of kilometers of deep-sea spaces, the first settlers arrived at least 700 thousand years ago. It is this time that animal bones and stones with alleged traces of processing found at several points on Flores Island (eastern Indonesia) are dated. This island, according to geologists, had no land connection with the mainland, and therefore the presence of such ancient stone products here would mean its settlement by sea, which, in turn, would testify in favor of the existence of a language among archanthropes. 8 Such a conclusion, in fact, has already been made by a number of authors, although, strictly speaking, the artificial origin of the objects found on Flores is still in question.

Many archaeologists, without denying the possibility of the existence of a language already in the early stages of human evolution, nevertheless argue that a “completely modern”, “developed syntactic language” appeared only among people of a modern physical type. However, there is no direct evidence to support such a hypothesis. Of course, there is no doubt that already in the most ancient period of its existence, the language went through many stages of conceptual, syntactic and phonetic complication, but how and when these changes were made, how significant they were and what exactly they consisted of, we do not know, and probably we'll never know.

1 Donskikh O.A. To the origins of language. Novosibirsk: "Nauka", 1988, p. 42.

2 This point of view is also presented in fiction. For example, A. Platonov in the novel "Chevengur" writes about a man who "muttered his thoughts to himself, unable to think silently. He could not think in the dark - first he had to put his mental excitement into words, and only then, hearing the word, he could clearly feel it.

3 Grooming is the search by animals for each other's insects, cleaning of wool and similar actions.

4 True, according to some authors, the evolution of the larynx, pharynx, etc. had only a third-rate significance for the development of human speech, since, as medical practice shows, people with a removed larynx can still speak, like people with a damaged tongue, palate, and lips. On the basis of these data, it has even been suggested that if a chimpanzee's larynx is transplanted into a person, then his speech will differ little from the speech of other people. So far, no one has dared to test this hypothesis.

5 Hockett C.F., R. Ascher. The human revolution // Current Anthropology, 1964, vol. 5, p. 142.

6 Donskikh O.A. The origin of language as a philosophical problem. Novosibirsk: "Nauka", 1984, p. 6-7.

7 Interestingly, even today, as a rule, people spend on various types of social interaction (conversations, participation in rituals, visits, etc.) no more or only a little more than 20% of the day. Data confirming this has been obtained for a wide variety of cultures from Scotland to Africa and New Guinea (Dunbar R.I.M. Theory of mind and the evolution of language // Approaches to the Evolution of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998, p. 97, tabl .6.1).

8 Bednarik R.G. Seafaring in the Pleistocene // Cambridge Archaeological Journal. 2003 Vol. 13. No. 1.

THEME 6

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF LANGUAGES

Questions:

1. The problem of the origin of the language

2. Development of languages ​​and dialects in different historical eras

3. Historical changes in the vocabulary of languages:

a) Milestones in development

b) Borrowing from other languages

1. The problem of the origin of language

The problem of the origin of human language is part of a more general problem of anthropogenesis (the origin of man) and sociogenesis, and it must be solved by the concerted efforts of a number of sciences that study man and human society. The process of becoming a person as a biological species Homo sapiens (“reasonable man”) and at the same time as beings “the most social of all animals” continued for millions of years.

The forerunners of man were not those types of great apes,

that exist now (gorilla, orangutan, chimpanzee, etc.), while others,

reconstructed from fossils found in different parts Old

Sveta. The first prerequisite for the humanization of the ape was the deepening division

the functions of her fore and hind limbs, the assimilation of a straight gait and an upright position of the body, which freed her hand for primitive labor operations.

By freeing the hand, as F. Engels points out, "a decisive step was taken for the transition from ape to man"2. It is no less important that the great apes lived in herds, and this later created the prerequisites for collective, social labor.

Known for excavations ancient species great apes,

those who have mastered a straight gait are Australopithecus (from Latin australis "southern" and other Greek.

pothykos "monkey"), who lived 2-3 million years ago in Africa and the southern parts

Asia. Australopithecus did not yet make tools, but already systematically used

as tools for hunting and self-defense and for digging up roots, stones, branches, etc.

The next stage of evolution is represented by the oldest man of the era

early (lower) Paleolithic - first pithecanthropus (lit. "monkey-man") and

other close varieties that lived about a million years ago and

somewhat later in Europe, Asia and Africa, and then by the Neanderthal3 (up to 200 thousand years

ago). The Pithecanthropus was already hewing around the edges of the pieces of stone that he used

like an ax - tools of universal use, and knew how to use fire, and the Neanderthal made from stone,

bones and wood are already specialized tools, different for different operations, and, apparently, he knew the initial forms of the division of labor and social organization.

“... The development of labor,” as F. Engels pointed out, “necessarily contributed to

closer rallying of the members of society, because thanks to him, they became more frequent

cases of mutual support, joint "activities, and the consciousness of benefit became clearer

this joint activity for each individual member. In short,

formed people came to the fact that they had a need for something

tell each other." At this stage, there was a big leap in the development of the brain:

study of fossil skulls shows that the Neanderthal brain was almost

twice that of Pithecanthropus (and three times that of a gorilla), and already

showed signs of asymmetry of the left and right hemispheres, as well as a special development of areas corresponding to Broca's and Wernicke's zones. This is consistent with the fact that the Neanderthal, as the study of the tools of that era shows, predominantly worked with the right hand. All this suggests that the Uneanderthal already had a language: the need for communication within the team "created its own organ."

What was this primitive language? Apparently he performed in

primarily as a means of regulating joint labor activity in

the emerging human team, i.e., mainly in the appellative and

contact-establishing, and also, of course, in an expressive function, as

we observe this at a certain stage of development in a child. "Consciousness"

primitive man was captured not so much by objects environment in

set of objectively inherent features, how much "the ability of these

items to "satisfy the needs" of people" 3 . The meaning of the "signs" of the primitive

language was diffuse: it was a call to action and at the same time an indication of the tool

and product of labor.

The "natural matter" of primitive language was also profoundly different from

"matter" of modern languages ​​and, undoubtedly, in addition to sound formations, widely

used gestures. In a typical Neanderthal (not to mention Pithecanthropus)

the lower jaw did not have a chin protrusion, and the oral and pharyngeal cavities were in total

shorter and of a different configuration than that of a modern adult (oral cavity

rather resembled the corresponding cavity in a child in the first year of life). This is

speaks of rather limited opportunities for the formation of a sufficient amount

differentiated sounds. The ability to combine the work of the vocal apparatus with

the work of the organs of the oral cavity and pharynx and quickly, in a split second, move from one

articulation to the other was also not yet developed to the required extent. But little by little

the situation changed: “... the undeveloped larynx of the monkey slowly but steadily

transformed by modulation for more and more developed modulation, and the organs of the mouth

gradually learned to pronounce one articulate sound after another.

In the era of the late (upper) Paleolithic (about 40 thousand years ago,

if not earlier) Neanderthals are replaced by neo°ntrop, i.e. "new person",

or Homo sapiens. He already knows how to make composite tools (such as an ax 4-

handle), which is not found in Neanderthals, knows a multi-colored rock

painting, in terms of the structure and size of the skull, does not fundamentally differ from

modern man. In this era, the formation of a sound language is completed,

already acting as a full-fledged means of communication, a means of social

consolidation of emerging concepts: “... after multiplying further

developed ... the needs of people and the activities by which they

satisfied, people give separate names to entire classes of ... objects” 2 . The signs of the language gradually acquire a more differentiated content: from the diffuse word-sentence, individual words are gradually distinguished - prototypes of future names and verbs, and the language as a whole begins to act in the fullness of its functions as an instrument for cognizing the surrounding reality.

Summing up all the above, we can say in the words of F. Engels:

“First labor, and then articulate speech along with it, were the two most

main stimuli, under the influence of which the brain of a monkey gradually turned into

human brain" 3 .

So, the primitive language cannot be investigated and experimentally tested.

However, this question has interested mankind since ancient times.

Even in the biblical legends, we find two conflicting solutions to the question of the origin of the language, reflecting different historical epochs of views on this problem. AT I chapter of the book of Genesis says that God created by a verbal spell and man himself was created by the power of the word, and in II the chapter of the same book tells that God created “silently”, and then brought all creatures to Adam (i.e., to the first man), so that the man would give them names, and whatever he would call, so that it would be henceforth.

In these naive legends, two points of view on the origin of the language have already been identified:

1) language not from a person and 2) language about a person.

At various times historical development mankind, this question was solved in different ways.

The extrahuman origin of language was initially explained as a "divine gift", but not only ancient thinkers gave other explanations for this issue, but also the "fathers of the church" in the early Middle Ages, ready to admit that everything comes from God, including the gift of speech, doubted so that god can turn into " school teacher", which would teach people vocabulary and grammar, where did the formula come from: God gave man the gift of speech, but did not reveal to people the names of objects (Gregory of Nyssa, 4th century n. e.) 1 .

1 See: Pogodin A. L. Language as creativity (Questions of the theory and psychology of creativity), 1913. P. 376.

Since antiquity, there have been many theories about the origin of the language.

1. Theory of onomatopoeia comes from the Stoics and received support in XIX and even XX in. The essence of this theory is that the “languageless person”, hearing the sounds of nature (the murmur of a stream, the singing of birds, etc.), tried to imitate these sounds with his own speech apparatus. In any language, of course, there are a number of onomatopoeic words like coo-coo, woof-woof, oink-oink, bang-bang, cap-cap, apchi, xa- xa- xaandetc. and derivatives of the type cuckoo, cuckoo, bark, grunt, pig, ha-hanki etc. But, firstly, there are very few such words, and secondly, “onomatopoeia” can only be “sounding”, but how then can we call “mute”: stones, houses, triangles and squares, and much more?

It is impossible to deny onomatopoeic words in language, but it would be completely wrong to think that language arose in such a mechanical and passive way. Language arises and develops in a person together with thinking, and with onomatopoeia, thinking is reduced to photography. Observation of languages ​​shows that there are more onomatopoeic words in new, developed languages ​​than in the languages ​​of more primitive peoples. This is explained by the fact that in order to “imitate onomatopoeia”, one must be able to perfectly control the speech apparatus, which a primitive person with an undeveloped larynx could not master.

2. Interjection theory comes from the Epicureans, opponents of the Stoics, and lies in the fact that primitive people turned instinctive animal cries into “natural sounds” - interjections that accompany emotions, from where all other words allegedly originated. This point of view was supported by 18th century J.-J. Rousseau.

Interjections are included in vocabulary any language and can have derivative words, as in Russian:ax, oxand gasp, groan etc. But again, there are very few such words in languages ​​and even fewer than onomatopoeic ones. In addition, the reason for the emergence of language by supporters of this theory is reduced to an expressive function. Without denying the presence of this function, it should be said that there is a lot in the language that is not related to expression, and these aspects of the language are the most important, for which the language could have arisen, and not just for the sake of emotions and desires, which animals are not deprived of, however, they do not have a language. In addition, this theory assumes the existence of a "man without language", who came to the language through passions and emotions.

3. The theory of "labor cries" at first glance, it seems to be a real materialistic theory of the origin of language. This theory originated in XIX in. in the writings of vulgar materialists (L. Noiret, K. Bucher) and boiled down to the fact that language arose from the cries that accompanied collective labor. But these "labor cries" are only a means of rhythmizing labor, they do not express anything, not even emotions, but are only external, technical means at work. Not a single function that characterizes the language can be found in these “labor cries”, since they are neither communicative, nor nominative, nor expressive.

The erroneous opinion that this theory is close to the labor theory of F. Engels is simply refuted by the fact that Engels does not say anything about “labor cries”, and the emergence of language is associated with completely different needs and conditions.

4. From the middle XVIII in. appeared "social contract theory". This theory was based on some opinions of antiquity (the thoughts of Democritus in the transmission of Diodorus Siculus, some passages from Plato's dialogue "Cratylus", etc.) 1 and in many respects corresponded to the rationalism of the 18th century

1 See: Ancient Theories of Language and Style, 1936.

Adam Smith proclaimed it the first opportunity for the formation of a language. Rousseau had a different interpretation in connection with his theory of two periods in the life of mankind: the first - "natural", when people were part of nature and language "came" from feelings ( passions ), and the second - "civilized", when the language could be the product of "social agreement".

In these arguments, the grain of truth lies in the fact that in the later epochs of the development of languages ​​it is possible to “agree” on certain words, especially in the field of terminology; for example, the system of international chemical nomenclature was developed at the international congress of chemists different countries in Geneva in 1892.

But it is also quite clear that this theory does nothing to explain the primitive language, since, first of all, in order to “agree” on a language, one must already have a language in which they “agree”. In addition, this theory assumes consciousness in a person before the formation of this consciousness, which develops along with the language (see below about F. Engels' understanding of this issue).

The trouble with all the theories outlined is that the question of the origin of language is taken in isolation, without connection with the origin of man himself and the formation of primary human groups.

As we said above (chap. I ), there is no language outside of society and there is no society outside of language.

Various theories of the origin of language (meaning spoken language) and gestures that have existed for a long time also do not explain anything and are untenable (L. Geiger, W. Wundt - in XIX in., J. Van-Ginneken, N. Ya. Marr - in XX in.). All references to supposedly purely "sign languages" cannot be supported by facts; gestures always act as something secondary for people who have a spoken language: such are the gestures of shamans, intertribal relations of the population with different languages, cases of using gestures during periods of prohibition of use sound language for women of some tribes at a low stage of development, etc.

There are no "words" among gestures, and gestures are not connected with concepts. Gestures can be indicative, expressive, but by themselves they cannot name and express concepts, but only accompany the language of words that has these functions 1 .

1 Under the conditions of a conversation in the dark, on the telephone, or reporting into a microphone, the question of gestures generally disappears, although the speaker may have them.

It is also unjustified to derive the origin of the language from the analogy with the mating songs of birds as a manifestation of the instinct of self-preservation (Ch. Darwin) and even more so from human singing (J.-J. Rousseau–v XVIII in., O. Jespersen - in XX c.) or even "fun" (O. Jespersen).

All such theories ignore language as a social phenomenon.

We find a different interpretation of the question of the origin of language in F. Engels in his unfinished work "The Role of Labor in the Process of the Transformation of Apes into Humans", which became the property of science in 20th century

Based on a materialistic understanding of the history of society and man, F. Engels in his "Introduction" to the "Dialectics of Nature" explains the conditions for the emergence of language in the following way:

“When, after a thousand-year struggle, the hand finally differentiated from the leg and a straight gait was established, then man separated from the monkey, and the foundation was laid for the development of articulate speech ...” 1

1 Marx K., Engels F. Works. 2nd ed. T. 20. S. 357.

W. von Humboldt wrote about the role of the vertical position for the development of speech: “The vertical position of a person also corresponds to the speech sound (which is denied to the animal)” X . Steinthal 2 and J. A. Baudouin de Courtenay 3 .

1 Humboldt V. On the difference in the structure of human languages ​​and its influence on spiritual development of the human race // Zvegintsev V. A. The history of linguistics of the 19th–20th centuries in essays and extracts. 3rd ed., add. M .: Education, 1964. S. 97. (New ed.: Humboldt V. fon. Selected works on linguistics. M., 1984).

2 See: S t e i n t h a 1 H. Der Ursprung der Sprache. 1st ed., 1851; 2nd ed. Uber Ursprung der Sprache im Zusammenhang mit den letzen Fragen alles Wissens, 1888.

3 See: Baudouin de Courtenay I. A. On one of the sides of the gradual humanization of the language in the process of development from monkey to man in the field of pronunciation in connection with anthropology // Yearbook of the Russian Anthropological Society. Ch. I, 1905. See: Baudouin de Courtenay I. A. Selected Works on General Linguistics. T. 2, M., 1963. S. 120.

Vertical gait was in human development both a prerequisite for the emergence of speech, and a prerequisite for the expansion and development of consciousness.

The revolution that man introduces into nature consists, first of all, in the fact that man's labor is different from that of animals, it is labor with the use of tools, and, moreover, made by those who should own them, and thus progressive and social labor. No matter how skillful architects we consider ants and bees, they “do not know what they are doing”: their work is instinctive, their art is not conscious, and they work with the whole organism, purely biologically, without using tools, and therefore no progress in their work no: both 10 and 20 thousand years ago they worked in the same way as they work now.

The first human tool was the freed hand, other tools developed further as additions to the hand (stick, hoe, rake, etc.); even later, a person shifts the burden to an elephant, a camel, an ox, a horse, and he only manages them, finally, a technical engine appears and replaces the animals.

Simultaneously with the role of the first instrument of labor, the hand could sometimes also act as an instrument of communication (gesture), but, as we saw above, this is not connected with “incarnation”.

“In short, the forming people came to what they had the need to say something each other. Need created its own organ: the undeveloped larynx of the monkey was slowly but steadily transformed by modulation for more and more developed modulation, and the organs of the mouth gradually learned to pronounce one articulate sound after another.

1 Engels F. Dialectics of nature (The role of labor in the process of turning a monkey into a man) // Marx K., Engels F. Works. 2nd ed. T. 20. S. 489.

Thus, not mimicry of nature (the theory of "onomatopoeia"), not an affective expression of expression (the theory of "interjections"), not meaningless "hooting" at work (the theory of "labor cries"), but the need for reasonable communication (by no means in "public contract”), where the communicative, semasiological, and nominative (and, moreover, expressive) functions of the language are carried out at once - the main functions without which the language cannot be a language - caused the appearance of the language. And language could arise only as a collective property necessary for mutual understanding, but not as an individual property of this or that incarnated individual.

F. Engels presents the general process of human development as the interaction of labor, consciousness and language:

“First, labor, and then, along with it, articulate speech were the two most important stimuli, under the influence of which the brain of a monkey gradually turned into a human brain ...” abstraction and inference had a reciprocal effect on labor and language, giving both more and more impetus to further development. “Thanks to the joint activity of the hand, the organs of speech and the brain, not only in each individual, but also in society, people have acquired the ability to perform more and more complex operations set yourself higher and higher goals and achieve them” 3 .

1 Ibid. S. 490.

2 There.

3 T a m. S. 493.

The main propositions arising from Engels's doctrine of the origin of language are as follows:

1) It is impossible to consider the question of the origin of language outside the origin of man.

2) The origin of the language cannot be scientifically proven, but one can only build more or less probable hypotheses.

3) Some linguists cannot solve this issue; thus this question is subject to resolution of many sciences (linguistics, ethnography, anthropology, archeology, paleontology and general history).

4) If the language was “born” together with the person, then there could not be a “languageless person”.

5) Language appeared as one of the first "signs" of a person; without language man could not be man.

6) If “language is the most important means of human communication” (Lenin), then it appeared when the need for “human communication” arose. Engels says so: "when the need arose to say something to each other."

7) Language is called upon to express concepts that animals do not have, but it is the presence of concepts along with language that distinguishes man from animals.

8) The facts of a language, to varying degrees, from the very beginning must have all the functions of a real language: language must communicate, name things and phenomena of reality, express concepts, express feelings and desires; without it, language is not "language".

9) Language appeared as a spoken language.

This is also mentioned by Engels in his work The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (Introduction) and in his work The Role of Labor in the Process of the Transformation of Apes into Man.

Consequently, the question of the origin of the language can be resolved, but by no means on the basis of linguistic data alone.

These solutions are hypothetical in nature and are unlikely to turn into a theory. Nevertheless, the only way to solve the question of the origin of the language, if based on the real data of languages ​​and on the general theory of the development of society in Marxist science.

LINGUISTICS

1. Scientific and branch structure external linguistics

The division of linguistics into internal and external was first carried out by the largest Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) in his famous "Course of General Linguistics" (1916). This division suggests various points perspective on the study of linguistic phenomena. Internal linguistics explores language as such, it abstracts from non-linguistic objects. External linguistics, on the contrary, studies language along with certain non-linguistic phenomena. Its task is to study such properties of the language that other objects have.

What is the scientific and sectoral structure of external linguistics? What kind scientific branches are part of the external linguistic disciplines?

External linguistics occupies an intermediate position between proper linguistics and other non-linguistic sciences. It borrows its sectoral structure from the non-linguistic sciences. The question arises: what kind of science? How to present them in the system?

Obviously, the classification of sciences should be made on an objective basis. In revealing the sectoral structure of science as a whole, we must follow the structure of the objective world. What are the components of modern world? It includes four types of objects - physical (dead), biological (alive), psychological and cultural. In other words, our world includes four components - dead nature, wildlife, psyche and culture. Each of these components is studied by the corresponding science. Dead nature is studied by physics, Live nature- biology, psyche - psychology and culture - cultural studies (or cultural studies).

The sequence in which we named the data of science is not accidental. It was in this sequence that the evolutionary

rationed the subjects of their research. In fact, primary in origin is dead, inorganic matter. Living, organic matter emerged from its bowels. Thanks to biophysical evolution, in turn, the psyche arose - the ability to ideally reflect the material world. Particularly great progress in the development of this ability was achieved by our animal ancestors - the great apes. In his mental development they are ahead of all other animals.

What caused the transition of apes to humans? Due to the fact that the thinking of great apes has reached such a degree of development that they were able to see in the world what can be changed, transformed, improved, improved. From the moment this ability bore its first fruits, the history of mankind began. Already the very first products of the transformative activity of our ancestors (processed animal skins used as clothing, primitive tools, etc.) were products of culture.

Culture is everything that was created by man as a result of his influence on nature and himself. Thanks to the development of culture, people have become and are becoming people to a greater and greater extent. The higher the cultural level of a person, the further he broke away from his animal ancestor. It refers to specific person, individual people and, finally, to humanity as a whole. In order for mankind to become more and more human, it must develop its culture.

What are the components of culture? First of all, we must divide it into material and spiritual. The difference between them is that the first is created to meet the needs of the biological, and the other - to meet the needs of the spiritual. The main components of material culture are food, clothing, housing and technology. The main components of spiritual culture, in turn, include religion, science, art, morality, politics and language.

Any product of culture is studied by culturology, the disciplinary structure of which depends on which particular component of culture is studied by the corresponding culturological science. So, religion is studied by religious studies, science - by science of science, art - by art history, morality - by ethics, politics.

tika - political science and language - linguistics. In turn, the products of material culture are studied by plant growing, animal husbandry, and so on.

What is the place of philosophy in the structure of science? The specificity of this science is that it studies the general (or most general) properties of any - physical, biological, psychological or cultural - object. Accordingly, we can say that philosophy rises above other sciences. We can present the original model of modern science as follows:

Philosophy

Within the framework of cultural studies, we can single out, on the one hand, religious studies, art history, science of science, ethics, political science and linguistics, and on the other hand, those sciences that are associated with clothing, food and other products of material culture (including technical sciences).

Based on the disciplinary structure of science as a whole, we will be able to answer the question of what is the scientific and branch structure of external linguistics. The latter follows from the connection of linguistics with philosophy, physics, biology, psychology and other non-linguistic sciences. That is why the composition of the main external linguistic disciplines includes five sciences - the philosophy of language (linguophilosophy), linguophysics, biolinguistics, psycholinguistics and linguistic cultural studies (linguoculturology). Linguistic philosophy studies the language along with all kinds of objects, while linguophysics studies the physical properties of the language, biolinguistics - the biotic properties of the language, psycholinguistics - the mental and cultural linguistics - the cultural properties of the language. In turn, the latter science includes the following disciplines:

1. Linguistic Religion.

2. Linguistic science.

3. Linguistic art history.

4. Linguistics.

5. Linguistic political science.

6. Linguistics.

7. Linguistics.

8. Lingvocybernetics.

The first of these disciplines studies the relationship of religion to language, the second - the relationship of science to language, the third - the relationship of art to language, the fourth - the relationship of morality to language, the fifth - the relationship of politics to language, the sixth - the relationship to language from religion, science, art and other products of culture, the seventh is the relation of technology to language, and the eighth is the relation of cybernetics to language.

2. Philosophy of language. Excursion

in the history of science

and its disciplinary structure

The philosophy of language originated in ancient times. In Antiquity, the problem of the origin of language was especially popular. Moreover, she took central position among other linguo-philosophical issues until the 19th century. At the end of the XX century. Two books have been published in which fascinating form describes the history of its development. These are the works of O.A. Donskikh "The Origin of Language as a Philosophical Problem" (Novosibirsk, 1984) and B.V. Yakushin "Hypotheses about the origin of the language" (M., 1984).

Even before Plato, there was a dispute in Greece between "naturalists" and "conventionalists". The supporter of the first was Heraclitus, the supporter of the others - Democritus. Heraclitus and his followers believed that the connection between names and things is natural (natural), and Democritus and his students - that this connection is conditional, that it is the result of an agreement (convention) between people.

The dispute between "naturalists" and "conventionalists" is described in Plato's dialogue Cratylus. Socrates speaks on behalf of Plato himself in his dialogues. He usually plays the role of an arbiter, dialectic

tika - a person who has the ability to resolve disputes. In this dialogue, Cratylus and Hermogenes are arguing. The first is a supporter of the "naturalists", and the second is a supporter of the "conventionalists". “Every being has a correct name,” says Cratyl, “innate from nature, and not that is the name that some people, having agreed to call it that, call it, while uttering a particle of their speech, but a certain correct name is innate to both Hellenes and barbarians, the same thing for everyone ... ”(Freidenberg O.M. Antique theories of language and style. - M .; L., 1936. P. 36). Hermogenes does not agree: “I cannot believe that the correctness of the name lies in anything other than a treaty and an agreement. After all, it seems to me, what name someone establishes for what, such will be the correct name; after all, no name is innate to anything by nature, but belongs to a thing on the basis of the law and custom of those who established this custom and call it that ”(ibid.). What position did Plato take in this dispute?

Through the mouth of Socrates, Plato first says that Cratylus is also right,

and Hermogenes, but then he convicts them of one-sidedness and ultimately joins the "naturalists". Yes, Plato believed, in the language there are both names created by nature and names created by agreement. Therefore, there are grounds for the claims of Cratylus and Hermogenes. But the whole point is how to create new words. They should be created, according to Plato, in accordance with the nature, the essence of the designated things. How to do it? It depends on what kind of name we are going to create - primary (i.e. non-derivative, in modern terminology) or secondary (i.e. derivative). In the first case, the task of the author of a new word is to reflect the essence of the designated thing with the help of sounds, and in the second - with the help of meaningful parts of the word. So, everything is round, soft, smooth, sliding, etc. should be indicated with the sound [l], and hard, sharp, sharp, etc. - with the help of sound [p]. Plato laid the foundations of the theory of sound symbolism in his Cratylus. According to this theory, it turns out that sounds, like words, have some, albeit not sufficiently defined, meaning. There are supporters of this theory in modern science(see: Zhuravlev A.P. Sound

and meaning. - M., 1981).

The philosophy of language in the Middle Ages developed within the framework of theology. "Church Fathers" Basil of Caesarea (4th century), Gregory

Nissky (IV century), Aurelius Augustine (IV-V centuries), John of Damascus (VII-VIII centuries), as shown by Yu.M. Edelstein (see: Problems of language in the monuments of patristics// History of linguistic teachings. Medieval Europe/ Ed. A.V. Desnitskaya and S.D. Katsnelson. - M.; L., 1985. S. 157-207), were by no means religious fanatics and obscurantists. They were creative people and managed to bring a lot of new things into the development of the philosophy of language. They raised, in particular, for the first time questions about communication in animals, about non-verbal thinking and inner speech people, etc. Long before F. Engels, Gregory of Nyssa considered the development of human hands as a prerequisite for the emergence of language. “... The assistance of the hands,” he wrote, “helps the need for the word, and if someone calls the service of the hands a feature of a verbal being - a person, if he considers this the main thing in his bodily organization, he will not be at all mistaken ... The hand freed his mouth for words” (ibid., p. 189).

Many theories about the origin of the language arose in modern times. In the XVII-XVIII centuries. onomatopoeic (G. Leibniz), interjection (D. Locke), social contract (J.-J. Rousseau) and other theories are substantiated. However, during this period there is a clear expansion of the subject area of ​​the philosophy of language. It began to include, in particular, issues related to the study of the communicative and cognitive functions of the language. Most scientists believed that the main function of language is the function of communication. It was believed that the main purpose of language is to be a means for conveying thoughts and feelings. However, some philosophers of language saw the main purpose of language in being a means of knowledge. They highlighted the cognitive function of language. Johann Adelung belonged to such scientists. Language, he believed, is a means that allows a person to make more clear those ideas that enter his consciousness. Without a linguistic form, they remain "dark" in it. He interpreted the cognitive function as "clarifying".

major philosopher XIX in. became Wilhelm von Humboldt. Like I. Adelung, he believed that the main purpose of language is to be an instrument of knowledge. He wrote: “A person manages to master his thoughts better and more reliably, to clothe them in new forms, to make imperceptible those fetters that he imposes on fast

the company and unity of pure thought in its forward movement is constantly dividing and reuniting language ”(Humboldt V. Language and Philosophy of Culture. - M., 1985. P. 376). In addition, language affects cognition, according to W. Humboldt, due to the fact that it contains singular point view of the world: the one occupied by the people who created this language. People are forced to learn the world through the prism of their native language, because, together with the assimilation of this language, they cannot but accept the special worldview contained in this language. W. Humboldt taught to see in language not a simple garment of ready-made thoughts, but a means for the formation of thought itself.

Highlighting the cognitive function of language, W. Humboldt did not forget about its other functions. Interpreting the communicative function of language, he, in particular, noted that complete mutual understanding between people in the process of verbal communication is impossible, since the speaker and the listener always have individual ideas about the world. The great German scientist also presents his thoughts on the third function of language - pragmatic. This function is that with the help of language people can encourage each other to action. W. Humboldt wrote about this: “The fact that language makes it necessary in the process of thought formation is constantly repeated in the entire spiritual life of a person - communication through language provides a person with confidence in his abilities and encourages action” (W. Humboldt. Selected Works on Linguistics. - M., 1984. S. 77). In other words, communication (word) turns into practice (deed), and the communicative function - into pragmatic.

The pragmatic function of language became the subject of special consideration in linguo-philosophical works of the 20th century. Boris Malinovsky did a lot to study it. He believed that it given function is central to the language. This is especially noticeable, he said, in children's language. The child uses the language mainly for pragmatic reasons: he encourages adults with the help of the language to take certain actions that he needs. In the XX century. stands out in a special area of ​​knowledge and ontogenetic linguistics. As a result, the philosophy of language acquired in the 20th century. rather extensive disciplinary structure. It includes the following disciplines:

1. Linguosemiotics.

2. Linguistic epistemology.

3. Lingvopraxeology.

4. Phylogenetic linguistics.

5. Ontogenetic linguistics.

The first of these disciplines of the philosophy of language studies the communicative function of language, the second - its cognitive (cognitive) function, the third - pragmatic (practical, praxeological), the fourth - the origin of language in mankind, the fifth - the origin of language in an individual (child).

3. Lingvosemiotics. Language as a special system of signs

A. Augustine pointed out the sign nature of language, but modern ideas about linguosemiotics began to take shape primarily under the influence of F. de Saussure. Linguosemiotics is the science of the communicative function of language. The essence of this function is that the language is a means of conveying the speaker's thoughts and feelings to the listener. This function is carried out due to the sign nature of the language.

The identification of the sign nature of a language becomes possible when the language begins to be studied along with other sign systems - the alphabet for the deaf and dumb, the system of road signs, etc. These systems are studied by semiotics - the science of signs. Semiotics occupies an intermediate position between internal linguistics and semiotics. Hence its two-root name. F. de Saussure became the founder of modern linguistic semiotics.

The Swiss scientist for the first time scientifically substantiated the need to study the language in a number of other sign systems. “Language,” he wrote, “is a sign system that expresses concepts, and therefore, it can be compared with writing, with the alphabet for the deaf and dumb, with symbolic rites, with forms of courtesy, with military signals, etc. etc. He is only the most important

these systems” (F. Saussure, de. Works on linguistics. - M., 1977. P. 54). And then we read: "Who wants to discover true nature language, should first of all pay attention to the fact that

in it has in common with other systems of the same order ... "

F. de Saussure considered the sign to be a bilateral (bilateral) entity, i.e. I saw in him not only the material, but also the ideal side. This view is shared by many today. However, more correct, in my opinion, is the point of view of Charles Morris, according to which the sign is recognized as a one-sided (monolateral) entity. The concept of "sign", according to C. Morris, includes only the material carrier of an idea. The substantiation of the legitimacy of this point of view on the nature of the sign was carried out by V.Z. Panfilov in his book "Gnoseological Aspects of philosophical problems linguistics” (M., 1982. Ch. 2). He showed why the sign is a monolateral entity. The fact is that one of the fundamental properties of a sign (along with substitution, i.e. with the property of replacing some other object) constitutes its convention (arbitrariness). It consists in the fact that the signs of the thing denoted are not repeated (or, in any case, should not be repeated by necessity) in the signs of the sign itself. This explains why the same objects can be named in different languages differently.

What happens if we include in the sign as such and its meaning? In this case, we must attribute the property of convention to meaning, and therefore, consider that it does not reflect objective reality, but is the result of the subjective arbitrariness of speakers of a given language (if we are dealing with linguistic signs). Proponents of the bilateral theory of the sign must come to equalize the external and inner sides sign units in relation to conventionality. In relation to semantics, this is not possible, since the semantic side of any sign unit cannot be recognized as arbitrary. It reflects one or another fragment of objective reality.

Insisting on the bilaterality of the sign, F. de Saussure could not but come to the conclusion that linguistics as a whole should take the position of one of the semiotic disciplines. He wrote: “Linguistics is only a part of this general science (the science of signs. -

The problem of the origin of language is one of the fundamental problems of theoretical linguistics. The following provisions can serve as initial landmarks in the labyrinths of common sense leading to the origins of human language:

The problem of the origin of the language is exclusively theoretical, therefore the reliability of its solution is largely determined by the logic of consistent judgments and conclusions.

In search of the origins of language as articulate speech, it is necessary to involve data from various sciences - linguistics, philosophy, history, archeology, anthropology, psychology, etc.

It is necessary to distinguish between the question of the origin of language in general and the questions of the origin of specific languages as chronologically incommensurable.

There are a number of hypotheses about the origin of the language, but none of them can be confirmed by facts due to the huge remoteness of the event in time. They remain hypotheses, since they can neither be observed nor reproduced in an experiment.

Religious theories

Language was created by God, gods or divine sages. This hypothesis is reflected in the religions of different nations.

According to the Indian Vedas (XX century BC), the main god gave names to other gods, and holy sages gave names to things with the help of the main god. In the Upanishads, religious texts of the 10th century B.C. it is said that being created heat, heat - water, and water - food, i.e. alive. God, entering into the living, creates in it the name and form of the living being. What is absorbed by a person is divided into the grossest part, the middle part and the subtlest part. Thus, food is divided into feces, meat and mind. Water is divided into urine, blood and breath, and heat is divided into bone, brain and speech.

In the second chapter of the Bible Old Testament) says:

“And the Lord God took the man whom he had made, and put him into the garden of Eden, to dress it and keep it. And the Lord God said, It is not good for the man to be alone; Let us make him a helper suitable for him. The Lord God formed from the earth all the animals of the field and all the birds of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them, and that whatever the man called every living soul, that was its name. And the man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to all the beasts of the field; but for man there was not found a helper like him. And the Lord God brought a deep sleep upon the man; and when he fell asleep, he took one of his ribs, and covered the place with flesh. And the rib taken from the man, the Lord God formed a wife, and brought her to the man” (Genesis 2:15-22).

According to the Qur'an, Adam was created by Allah from dust and "sounding clay". Having breathed life into Adam, Allah taught him the names of all things and thereby exalted him above the angels” (2:29)

However, later, according to the Bible, God punished the descendants of Adam for their attempt to build a tower to heaven with a variety of languages:

The whole earth had one language and one dialect... And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower that the sons of men were building. And the Lord said, Behold, there is one people, and all have one language; and this is what they began to do, and they will not lag behind what they have planned to do. Let us go down, and let us confuse their language there, so that one does not understand the speech of the other. And the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth; and they stopped building the city. Therefore a name was given to her: Babylon; for there the Lord confounded the language of all the earth, and from there the Lord scattered them over all the earth (Genesis 11:5-9).

The Gospel of John begins with the following words, where the Logos (word, thought, mind) is equated with the Divine:

“In the beginning was the Word [Logos], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. It was in the beginning with God."

The Acts of the Apostles (part of the New Testament) describes an event that happened to the apostles, from which the connection of language with the Divine follows:

“When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together with one accord. And suddenly there was a noise from heaven, as if from a rushing strong wind, and filled the whole house where they were. And divided tongues appeared to them, as if of fire, and rested one on each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. In Jerusalem there were Jews, devout people, from every nation under heaven. When this noise was made, the people gathered and were confused, for everyone heard them speaking in his own language. And they were all amazed and wondering, saying among themselves, Are not these who speak all Galileans? How do we hear each of his own dialect in which he was born. Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and parts of Libya adjacent to Cyrene, and those who came from Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians, we hear them in our languages talking about the great things of God? And they were all amazed and, perplexed, said to each other: what does this mean? And others, mocking, said: they drank sweet wine. But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice and cried out to them: Men of the Jews, and all who dwell in Jerusalem! let this be known to you, and give heed to my words…” (Acts of the Apostles, 2:1-14).

The Day of Pentecost, or Trinity Day, deserves to be, in addition to its religious significance, the Day of the Linguist or Translator.

First experiments and scientific hypotheses

Also in Ancient Egypt people thought about which language is the most ancient, that is, they raised the problem of the origin of the language.

When Psammetiks ascended the throne, he began to collect information about what kind of people are the most ancient ... The king ordered that two newborn babies (from ordinary parents) be given to a shepherd to be raised among a flock [of goats]. By order of the king, no one was to utter a single word in their presence. The babies were placed in a separate empty hut, where at a certain time the shepherd brought the goats and, after giving the children milk to drink, did everything else that was necessary. So did Psammetichus and gave such orders, wanting to hear what the first word would break from the lips of babies after the indistinct children's babble. The king's command was carried out. So the shepherd acted on the orders of the king for two years. Once, when he opened the door and entered the hut, both babies fell at his feet, stretching out their arms, uttering the word “bekos” ... When Psammetich himself also heard this word, he ordered to ask what people and what exactly he calls the word “bekos” , and learned that this is what the Phrygians call bread. From this, the Egyptians concluded that the Phrygians were even older than themselves… The Hellenes tell us that there are still many absurd stories… that Psammetich ordered the tongues of several women to be cut out and then gave them babies to raise. (Herodotus. History, 2, 2).

This was the first linguistic experiment in history, followed by others, not always so cruel, although in the 1st century AD. Quintilian, a Roman teacher of rhetoric, has already stated that "according to the experience made of raising children in the deserts by dumb nurses, it has been proved that these children, although they uttered some words, could not speak coherently."

This experiment was repeated in the 13th century by the German emperor Frederick II (the children died), and in the 16th century by James IV of Scotland (the children spoke Hebrew - obviously the purity of the experience was not observed) and Khan Jalaladdin Akbar, the ruler of the Mughal Empire in India (the children spoke with gestures) .

Ancient hypotheses

Basics modern theories The origin of the language was laid by the ancient Greek philosophers. According to their views on the origin of the language, they were divided into two scientific schools - supporters of "fusei" and adherents of "tesei".

Fusei

Supporters of the natural origin of the names of objects (φυσει - Greek. by nature), in particular, Heraclitus of Ephesus(535-475 BC), believed that the names were given by nature, since the first sounds reflected the things that the names correspond to. Names are shadows or reflections of things. The one who names things must discover the correct name created by nature, but if this fails, then he only makes noise.

Theseus

Names come from the establishment, according to custom, declared the adherents of the establishment of names by agreement, an agreement between people (θεσει - Greek. to establish). They were treated Democritus of Abder(470/460 - the first half of the 4th century BC) and Aristotle from Stagira (384-322 BC). They pointed to many inconsistencies between a thing and its name: words have several meanings, the same concepts are denoted by several words. If the names were given by nature, it would be impossible to rename people, but, for example, Aristocles with the nickname Plato (“broad-shouldered”) went down in history.

Supporters theseus they argued that the names are arbitrary, and one of them, the philosopher Dion Cronus, even called his slaves unions and particles (for example, “But after all”) to confirm his case.

To this, the Fusei supporters replied that there are correct names and names given erroneously.

Plato in his dialogue "Cratylus", named after a supporter Fusey who argued with Hermogenes, an adherent theseus, proposed a compromise: the names are created by the setters of names in accordance with the nature of the thing, and if this is not the case, then the name is poorly established or distorted by custom.

Stoics

Representatives of the philosophical school stoics, in particular Chrysippus of Salt(280-206), also believed that names arose from nature (but not from birth, as supporters believed fusei). According to them, some of the first words were onomatopoeic, while others sounded like they affect feelings. For example, the word honey (mel) sounds nice, because honey is delicious, and cross (crux)- tough, because people were crucified on it (Latin examples are explained by the fact that these views of the Stoics have come down to us in the transfer of the writer and theologian Augustine(354-430). Further words appeared from associations, transfer by adjacency ( piscina- "pool" from piscis- "fish"), in contrast ( bellum- "war" from bella- "beautiful"). Even if the origin of words is hidden, they can be established by research.

Hypotheses of the new time

Hypotheses in the spirit of the ancient theory of Fusei

Onomatopoeic(Greek "creating names"), or, in other words, an onomatopoeic hypothesis.

Language arose from the imitation of the sounds of nature. The ironic name for this hypothesis is the "wow-wow" theory.

This theory of the Stoics was revived by the German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716). He divided sounds into strong, noisy ones (for example, the sound "r") and soft, quiet ones (for example, the sound "l"). Thanks to the imitation of the impressions that things and animals made on them, the corresponding words (“roar”, “weasel”) also arose. But modern words, in his opinion, have moved away from their original sounds and meanings. For example, "lion" ( Lowe) has a soft sound due to the speed of running ( Lauf) of this predator.

Interjection hypothesis

Emotional cries of joy, fear, pain, etc. led to the creation of the language. The ironic name of this hypothesis: the "pah-pah" theory.

Charles de Brosse(1709-1777), a French writer-encyclopedist, observing the behavior of children, discovered how children's exclamations, which were originally meaningless, turn into interjections, and decided that primitive man had passed the same stage. His conclusion: the first words of a person are interjections.

Etienne Bonnot de Condillac(1715-1780), French philosopher, believed that language arose from the need for mutual assistance of people. It was created by a child because he needs to tell his mother more than his mother needs to tell him. Therefore, initially there were more languages ​​than individuals. Condillac singled out three types of signs: a) random, b) natural (natural cries to express joy, fear, etc.), c) chosen by the people themselves. The screams were accompanied by gestures. Then people began to use words that were originally only nouns. At the same time, initially one word expressed a whole sentence.

French writer and philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau(1712-1778) believed that “the first gestures were dictated by needs, and the first sounds of the voice were torn out by passions ... The natural effect of the first needs was to alienate people, and not to bring them closer. It was alienation that contributed to the rapid and even settlement of the earth […] the source of the origin of people […] in spiritual needs, in passions. All passions bring people together, while the need to preserve life forces them to avoid each other. Not hunger, not thirst, but love, hatred, pity and anger vomited the first sounds from them. The fruits do not hide from our hands; they can be fed in silence; a man silently pursues the prey with which he wants to get enough. But in order to excite a young heart, in order to stop an unjust attacker, nature dictates to a person sounds, cries, complaints. These are the most ancient of words, and this is why the first languages ​​were sung and passionate before they became simple and rational.”

The English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809-1882) believed that onomatopoeia and interjection theories are the two main sources of the origin of language. He drew attention to the great imitative abilities of monkeys, our closest relatives. He also believed that during the courtship of a primitive man, "musical cadences" arose, expressing various emotions - love, jealousy, a challenge to an opponent.

biological hypothesis

Language is a natural organism, arises spontaneously, has certain period life and dies as an organism. put forward this hypothesis German linguist August Schleicher(1821-1868) under the influence of Darwinism, that is, the doctrine that determines the leading role of natural selection in biological evolution. But the first roots of words arose, in his opinion, as a result of onomatopoeia.

Hypothesis of the public (social) contract.

This hypothesis shows the influence of the ancient theory theseus, according to which people agreed on the designation of objects with words.

This hypothesis was supported by the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes(1588-1679): The disunity of people is their natural state. Families lived on their own, with little contact with other families, and obtained food in a hard struggle in which people "waged a war of all against all." But in order to survive, they had to unite into a state, concluding an agreement among themselves. To do this, it was necessary to invent a language that arose by establishment.

Jean Jacques Rousseau believed that if emotional cries are from human nature, onomatopoeia are from the nature of things, then vocal articulations are pure convention. They could not arise without the general consent of the people. Later, by agreement (by social contract), people agreed on the words used. Moreover, the more limited the knowledge of people, the more extensive was their vocabulary. At first, each object, each tree had its own given name, and only later did common names appear (i.e. not oak A, oak B, etc., but oak as a common name).

Gesture theory

Associated with other hypotheses (interjection, social contract). This theory was put forward by Etienne Condillac, Jean Jacques Rousseau and a German psychologist and philosopher Wilhelm Wundt(1832-1920), who believed that language is formed arbitrarily and unconsciously. But at first, physical actions (pantomime) prevailed in a person. And these " mimic movements There were three types: reflex, index and pictorial. Reflex movements expressing feelings later corresponded to interjections. Indicative and pictorial, expressing, respectively, ideas about objects and their outlines, corresponded to the roots of future words. The first judgments were only predicates without subjects, that is, sentence words: “shines”, “sounds”, etc.

Rousseau emphasized that with the advent of an articulate language, gestures disappeared as the main means of communication - the sign language has many shortcomings: it is difficult to use while working, communicate at a distance, in the dark, in a dense forest, etc. Therefore, sign language has been replaced by spoken language, but has not been completely supplanted.

Gestures as an auxiliary means of communication continue to be used modern man. Non-verbal (non-verbal) means of communication, including gestures, studies paralinguistics as a separate discipline of linguistics

Labor hypotheses

Collectivist hypothesis (labor cry theory)

The language appeared in the course of collective work from rhythmic labor cries. Put forward a hypothesis Ludwig Noiret, German scientist half of XIX century.

Engels' Labor Hypothesis

Labor created man, and at the same time language arose. The theory was put forward by a German philosopher Friedrich Engels(1820-1895), friend and follower Karl Marx.

Spontaneous jump hypothesis

According to this hypothesis, the language arose abruptly, immediately with a rich vocabulary and language system. Hypothesized by a German linguist Wilhelm Humboldt(1767-1835): “Language cannot arise otherwise than immediately and suddenly, or, more precisely, everything must be characteristic of the language at every moment of its existence, thanks to which it becomes a single whole ... It would be impossible to invent a language if its type was no longer embedded in the human mind. In order for a person to be able to comprehend at least one word not just as a sensual impulse, but as an articulate sound denoting a concept, the entire language and in all its interconnections must already be embedded in it. There is nothing singular in language; each individual element manifests itself only as part of the whole. No matter how natural the assumption of the gradual formation of languages ​​may seem, they could arise only immediately. A person is a person only because of language, and in order to create a language, he must already be a person. The first word already presupposes the existence of the whole language.

Jumps in the emergence of biological species also speak in favor of this seemingly strange hypothesis. For example, when developing from worms (which appeared 700 million years ago) to the appearance of the first vertebrates - trilobites, 2000 million years of evolution would be required, but they appeared 10 times faster as a result of some kind of qualitative leap.