cricket

I was reading something a few weeks/months ago that suggested this, but now I can't find it. I'll paraphrase the remark I (don't) remember:

My apologies to whoever's 'quote' I've butchered. I think it was either Dawkins, Steven Pinker, Robert Wright, or Matt Ridley. I can't find it now.

I've done a search engine search, since allegedly there is 'support for this theory', but I can't find anything.

Does anyone know anything about this concept? I was intrigued when I read it; wish I could find it. I assume the author was referring primarily to the grammatical structure that's so similar in many languages across the world, and how they may have evolved from one protolanguage, but --- one early genius?! that's sorta exciting, to me.

Does anyone know anything about the evolution of language? and especially, the one-early-genius idea?

cricket

I am assuming the protolanguage had to have evolved naturally for some time before a genius (if there was one) invented and imposed his grammatical rules.

?

Dr.GH

The linguistic "archaeology" that I am aware of suggests multiple language groups in antiquity. Paul Kay, Brent Berlin (both were at Berkley) and Roy Dandratti(sp?) at UCSD worked on the foundations of terms used for counting, and for colors. There are what can be seen as universals, but these are likely to be as neurologically hardwired as cultural. See Noam Chompski(sp) on "deep structure" and "generative grammers." I have not been active in that area for nearly 20 years, and there could be some new material. But, I do read a goodly number of journals and I don't recall any earth shaking new discoveries.

BLoggins02

I'm tellin ya, it was that freakin' snake that taught it to us

cricket

hee!

God *hated* when that happened.

leonarde

cricket,
Though I am not a staunch advocate of biological evolution, in the area of language development there is NO doubt (there really aren't
ANY dissenters)that languages evolve and that this
has been going on as long as there have been languages.
No "genius" could have convinced people to speak the way he wanted them to. People are stubbourn
about such things.
Over the course of 2000 years or so Latin evolved
into French, Spanish, Italian, and SEVERAL other
Romance languages. This was known long before the
birth of Charles Darwin. Whether the evolution of
languages and the knowledge of it had an influence
on Darwin's theory, I couldn't tell you.
Cheers!

tronvillain

The quote doesn't remind me of anything I've read by Dawkins or Ridley, and the "one early genius" idea sounds extremely improbable.

joedad

And I vaguely recall instances of children inventing their own languages - maybe twins - which they then use to communicate, and which others cannot decipher. This would not have been learned.

joe

leonarde

Joedad,
If it is the case I read about years ago it was
something like this:
1)the twins (girls?) were rather isolated from other children.
2)their English-speaking mother (or perhaps both
parents) didn't give them a lot of attention.
3)their German(?)-speaking grandmother had the most contact with the twins.
4)their twin language was some odd fusion of German and English.
(this was MANY years ago---20?)
Cheers!

MrDarwin

There are some ambiguities here: first, how is "language" defined? The question assumes it can be defined in such a way that it is unique to humans.

A related ambiguity is whether our closest living relatives, the great apes in general and chimpanzees in particular, have anything resembling "language" as we define it.