Historical Linguistics

Reconstructing the Fossil

At the beginning of the last century investigations and research about the origin of language started again. Thanks to the new discoveries of paleontology about bones, the theory of evolution proposed by Darwin, the idea that something could be discovered about the origin of language was still up to date. Nowadays there are a lot of initiatives concerning the origin of language adopting different perspectives and approaches, but this is the worst condition, because a reliable answer to the issue of the origin of language requires a multifaceted approach, not only unilateral. The global answer to this issue needs a lot of perspectives cooperative together (cognitive, functional...). There is a relevant part/role played by physical characteristics of the human body. There is a lot of fake news, some ideas that are repeated, spread all over the world commonly accepted, but in the end they are highly incorrect. There are many hoaxes: to trick into believing or

accepting as genuine something false and often preposterous. There is no solid basis for a claim, it is a false belief that is commonly accepted. Even in science there are hoaxes: unidentified flying objects. There is an interesting proposal by Dan Sperber, epidemiology of representations: according to him there are 2 categories of representations: PRIVATE, MENTAL representation, which correspond to our believes, intentions, preferences, choices, it is a private matter; PUBLIC representation, which are less numerous, there is just a small number of them (texts, images, signals). The point is that, according to this approach, public representations become part of the individual representation, so that everybody accepts an idea that seems to be a common idea, reliable, beyond any personal belief. Ideas are transmitted and transformed step by step as they move from one person to another. As Sperber puts it, not randomly but in the direction of content that demands less mental effort and results in

greater cognitive effect. Any idea the easier to accept is, thepeople don’t like difficult ideas, mechanisms. IN this sense there is a tendency tobetter:optimize the ratio between the effect and the effort: if the effort is small and it gains a gooddeal of the fact, it is perfect. This is useful if we want to make an effective representation.Unfortunately this is frequently the way it functions in society for every news. (i.e: one of themost interesting cases of successful hoaxes is represented by the so called “case of Piltdownman skull” (1912) → Darwin: search for the missing ring of the chain that connects the firstaustralopithecus to the homo sapiens sapiens. In 1912 there was this fossil’s discovery: at thattime this skull was considered the missing ring between the great apes and men. It was perfectfor that time, because it was big enough to contain a big brain (sign of intelligence). Thisfinding in a way supported the theory of the supremacy of the

white race (ideology combines with finding in a secret way). The problem is that this skull was a brilliant artifact, it was a hoax: it was obtained through the combination of the assemblage of bones of skull that dated back, most to the Middle Ages and the mandible of a young orangutan from Borneo. Combining these pieces, they got the missing ring.). There are many other hoaxes that have been successful: one of these concerns the so called hyoid bone. There are 2 ideas that are probably fake: the first is a statement that is continuously repeated, that the hyoid bone is a key mean that if you don't have it, you couldn't produce factor in the origin of speech: it should sounds, speak. We know that all mammals have this bone, so this is a good reason to conclude that the existence of the hyoid bone is not a relevant factor in the discussion of speech emergence. On this point there are other positions, but the point is that the existence of the hyoid seems to correspond to a necessary condition.

but not to a sufficient one. The problem is that even animals that do not have the hyoid bone can produce in principle sounds. The hyoid bone doesn't seem to be a necessary bone, but if we read essays about it, the presence of the hyoid in the phonetic apparatus is still believed as a necessary condition. The second hoax is about the larynx descent: this theory was proposed by Philip Lieberman (1984): when it was proposed it seemed so powerful that it could explain, account for several different phenomena, but in fact this hypothesis turned out to be completely incorrect. Larynx is one of the main factors in producing sounds, points used by different languages in the world to produce sounds. This proposal had the aim of explaining 3 phenomena that seemed to be unrelated: the reason why great apes do not speak, why neanderthal man could only utter a few relatively undifferentiated vowels, why babies do not generate a well-formed vowel system in their first months. This theory, still

The idea that great apes do not speak is not without its problems, as explained in several textbooks. However, this explanation does not account for other points. According to Lieberman, the problem with this viewpoint is that Neanderthal men are closer to great apes than to human beings. In the past, Neanderthal men were believed to be very similar to great apes, producing indistinct sounds. However, in the last three decades, there have been interesting and undeniable findings about Neanderthal men. They were capable of speech, producing sounds, and abstract thought. They even had religious rites. While they may not belong to the evolutionary line of modern humans, they were as intelligent as human beings, if not close. This is one of the weakest aspects of Lieberman's proposal. It is worth noting that Neanderthal men are often referred to as our cousins, as they are genetically close to us and did not have any vocal disabilities. They were able to speak. Nowadays, it is...

Thought that they were able to speak and possessed an articulated language. They also stood erected, not moving like apes. The result of all these objections is that there has been no larynx descent in the course of phylogeny (ontogenetic perspective focuses on different individuals, the phylogenetic perspective concentrates on the species of human): several million years ago the human branch started and since then there was no larynx descent. We know that they possessed the 3 cardinal vowels of the human language (present in almost any language): a, i, u → cardinal vocalic triangle. They were able to speak. There is another way of circular reasoning: in the end, the source for this claim about the Neanderthal is based on a skull: according to its shape, we figure out how they could speak, what kind of sounds they could produce… This is the skull of La Chapelle-aux-Saints: it was reconstructed in 1913 by Marcellin Boule, but the problem is that he reconstructed it in the wrong way: the

reconstruction was biased and the skull is now useless. The interesting remark is that the idea that this skull is useless from a scientific viewpoint is not relevant to Lieberman. Language and speech emergence is the result of remarkable conjunctures of many factors, as functions that require an explanation that are frequently associated with language/origin of language (language seems to have developed out of these conditions: existence of a highly sophisticated...: language is associated with a highly sophisticated auditory system and organ of respiration: you can't produce any sounds if you can't breathe and can't hear. 2°: exaptation: frequently employed in historical morphosyntax, it is the phenomenon by which an organ loses its original function but is refunctionalised for other functions. This notion was proposed for fossils and paleontology, biology, by 2 famous scholars: Gould and Vrba in 1982. This notion was adopted by historical linguist Roger.

Lass, "How to do things with junks", where he showed how language uses some ineffective, useless pieces inside the word and reanalyses it to create something new that is productive. Coordinated with respiration: dividing into clauses/sentences is related to respiration.

1. Coordinating phonetics and articulation is a natural process of our body, but there are some brain diseases that prevent this from happening.
2. Doubly compositional system: significance and signifiee, + productivity.
3. The language we speak is the combination of these points, but the crucial characteristic of human language is recursion. However, the question that paleontologists and anthropologists ask is "what was the initial state in which speech emergence happened? How was it possible?" These are part of the pull and push approach (2010), proposed by Jean-Luc Schwartz. The model is divided into function and substance: it is based on evolutionary theory and presupposes a

possibilities is that language evolved as a means of communication among early humans. It could have started as a simple system of gestures and sounds, gradually developing into a more complex and structured form of communication. Another possibility is that language evolved as a way for humans to express their thoughts and emotions. It could have been a tool for self-expression and for forming social bonds within early human communities. The push approach suggests that language evolved from pre-existing cognitive abilities and social structures. It emphasizes the continuity between language and other cognitive functions, such as memory and problem-solving. On the other hand, the pull approach focuses on the unique features of language that distinguish it from other cognitive functions. It suggests that language emerged as a result of specific evolutionary pressures, such as the need to coordinate group activities or to transmit cultural knowledge. Overall, the question of the primary purpose of language remains open and subject to further research and debate. Both the push and pull approaches offer valuable insights into the origins and functions of language, and future studies may shed more light on this fascinating topic.only in speech production but also in language comprehension. The FOXP2 gene was found to be mutated in this family, leading to difficulties in language development. Further studies have shown that FOXP2 is involved in various aspects of language processing, including grammar, articulation, and sequencing of speech sounds. It is believed to play a crucial role in the development and function of the brain regions responsible for language. Understanding the role of FOXP2 has provided valuable insights into the genetic basis of language and how it evolved in humans. It has also shed light on the complex nature of language disorders and the potential for targeted interventions. In conclusion, the discovery of the FOXP2 gene and its association with language difficulties has been a significant breakthrough in the field of linguistics and genetics. It has deepened our understanding of the biological foundations of language and opened up new avenues for research and treatment of language disorders.